Replies: 26 Comments

Posted by: Publicus On Thursday, April 7th

Nathan, your definiton of "conservative" floats with the wind, just as Bush's does. I don't view the question as a "challenge" from you; I view it as yet another opportunity for you to wriggle and play to the crowd. Bush's "conservative" legacy is likely to do more damage to the movement from within than any oppinent from outside will do. Political pundits like you have reduced the idea to cheap theatrics and a cult of personality around Bush as he rips the foundation out from underneath conservatism and delivers no fixed point of reference except himself. The word conservative means hardly anything any longer--a Republican "conservative" today looks like a Johnson liberal, or a mullah. It's based on faith, not on behavior; on mortgaging the future instead of paying your own way; on rhetoric and not action.

You aren't "raising the level", Nathan. You're denying any personal accountability for your actions and your opinions, and attempting to reframe a discussion that has become very inconvenient for you.

Posted by: Nathan_Smith@ksg03.harvard.edu">Nathan Smith On Thursday, April 7th

In the interest of raising the level of debate. I've given you plenty of chances. Why don't you take up my challenge about the essence of conservatism?

Posted by: Publicus On Thursday, April 7th

So...in the interest of free speech, you'll engage in censorship. In the interest of Christian arguments and how they beat the non-Christian ones, you'll engage in threats.

It doesn't take a lot to get you to show your true colors, Nathan.

Posted by: scooter On Thursday, April 7th

Nathan - Well you've stumbled upon the main reason Publicus is labeled by many no CJ as a "naysayer" and a "troll" - we know what he doesn't believe, and we know that he's identified himself as a "conservative," but he ignores our requests for some statement - anything - about what he does believe.

Posted by: Nathan Smith On Thursday, April 7th

Publicus,

By the way, I did NOT alter the post after there were comments, and I'm disgusted that you persist in this allegation. I don't remember for sure if I altered the post early on. But I'm certain I didn't change it afterwards. The reason I can be sure of this is that when there are no comments, I tend to think of a post as (as far as I know) unread, and I don't worry too much about changing it. But when there are comments I think of the post as having a specific reader, and changing the words would be a transaction between me and a reader, which is more serious and memorable. I would not forget this.

What happened is simple: you posted a remark that you wanted to attribute to me, something you had unwarrantedly inferred from my post; afterwards, you looked at the post and saw that it wasn't there; and then, to cover yourself, you made up a story that I had changed the post.

I have the power to delete comments, Publicus. If you persist in allegations like this, I'll consider using it.

Posted by: Nathan Smith On Thursday, April 7th

Now this is an interesting turn of events:

Publ. writes: "Here's my ad hominem critique, Nathan: thinkers like you are a disease that will kill the long-term future of the conservative movement. You are a fake."

Wait a minute. Does this imply that you, Publicus, do consider yourself a conservative? I won't contradict you: I haven't been able to size up your views yet. But that's not the impression I had.

What I definitely am is a Bush-supporter and a Republican. Whether I'm a conservative, I don't know: there are so many different strands of conservative thinking that I don't know how to come up with a yardstick. I have a good deal of sympathy with theocons, neocons, libertarians, and free-marketeers, all of which are elements in the broad conservative coalition as I understand it. There are also plenty of contradictions, so it is hardly possible to agree with, say, both theocons and libertarians, or libertarians and neocons, on every issue.

There is one figure who at least claims to be part of the conservative movement whom I totally disagree with and hold in contempt: Pat Buchanan. And Pat Buchanan is a much more credentialled conservative than I am. So maybe I am a fake. But a fake-- what? Can you articulate this essence of conservatism which I am allegedly faking?

Posted by: Publicus On Thursday, April 7th

Nathan, your appreciation for erudition as substitute for candor doesn't mask the fact. You changed your original post.

If you "genuinely don't remember whether I may have made some adjustments to the post early on. (I don't think so.)", then it is impossible you could be "absolutely certain that I did not make any changes to the post after, or in reaction to, reading any of the comments."

This playing the wounded party doesn't wash when you're guilty in the first place of attempting to pin on me the inconvenient remark you made and from which you wanted to back away. This kind of petty prevarication doesn't make your arguments any stronger.

If you're unfamiliar with the scientific method, you join a vocal minority of strident evangelicals who want to believe the literal truth of the Bible despite the incontrovertible record around them. They may be making a brave sacrifice in so doing, and more power to them, but their monomania is dangerous in any process of science, law, medicine, criminology, or economics where an objective assessment of the evidence must underlie any conclusions. Your tautologies are written all over you: your reasoning circles around until your whole argument, again and again, amounts to you saying that you believe what you believe and you will not be dissuaded.

And the remark that you 'don't claim to know how the world is made; nor do I think I need to' is indeed just ignorance dressed up." What else do you think you don't need to know? "Nor do I think I need to" is not a "skeptical outlook" at all; it's willfully shutting down any personal process of inquiry.

As for the entire "troll" issue, the pattern is clear. A troll here is anyone who breaks the numb trance of self-congratulation and smug delusion that permits people to ignore reality and call the rest of the world wrong. This blog isn't at all about political inquiry or "debate." It's about how you feel about yourself. No position is too absurd if it makes you sound like a sober moralizing truth-teller, so we can find out from any number of contributors here that black is really white, liberals are bad, scientists don't understand epistemplogy, etc., all in the warm safe haze that protects us from actual accountability for our assertions.

Edward Banfield said years about about liberals that “The doing of good is not so much for the benefit of those to whom the good is done as it is for that of the doers, whose moral faculties are activated and invigorated by the doing of it.” That same virus is embedded here. You don't have to be a real conservative to be a prolific poster as you are. You only have to play the role, say the lines, resort to the transparent card-tricks that pass for skillful rhetoric, and feel like a conservative while the empirical foundation of conservatism rots away underneath you.

Here's my ad hominem critique, Nathan: thinkers like you are a disease that will kill the long-term future of the conservative movement. You are a fake.

Posted by: Nathan Smith On Wednesday, April 6th

Publicus,

Having been once censored as a troll at Brad DeLong's website, and having castigated him (follow the link but also go to "So I'm a Troll" in Previous Posts) for avoiding an open debate, I feel committed to the principle of not censoring trolls. Well, I don't intend to censor you; and in general, I appreciate your feedback. You sometimes raise interesting points, or (more often) give me an occasion to do so.

But there's a limit. Please hold the ad hominem attacks. I'm not inclined to debate with someone who calls me a liar for example. I genuinely don't remember whether I may have made some adjustments to the post early on. (I don't think so.) But I am absolutely certain that I did not make any changes to the post after, or in reaction to, reading any of the comments.

It's disappointing that your post shows such a preference for insult over argument. You could respond to my charge that scientists don't understand epistemology, for example, by offering a defense of the scientific method as an avenue to truth. That would have been an enlightening contribution to the debate. Instead, you call my view "laughable."

Here's a response to what little of substance there is in your post:

Re: "Your faith is your faith. It's not an argument, and the assertion that 'Christian arguments tend to beat non-Christian arguments' would amuse a Jew, a Muslim, a Taoist...anyone but a dogmatic Christian."

I don't think so. A Jew or Muslim (I don't know much about Taoism) would agree with many of what I call 'Christian arguments' (for the existence of God, the supernatural soul, or moral realism) and would dispute, rather than dismiss, others. "Your faith is your faith" is a typical caricature of religion by someone who is not motivated to try.

Re: "You would have to advocate that no athiest be allowed to hold office if you believe your own assertion that 'Christianity and freedom flourish together.' Anything else would be an attack on the potential freedoms you say you seek to support."

This is an interesting move: you find it difficult to argue against my real position, so you try to impose a different position on me and argue against that. It's a common tactic in argument, but it's rarely this transparent. My answer: in a democracy, you have to allow people to attack freedom, rhetorically and in the political arena. You have to allow opponents of freedom of the press to publish their views. You have to allow anti-democrats to run for office. This can have tragic consequences, as it did in the Weimar Republic, which was ripped apart as anti-democratic parties of the left and right attracted a majority of the vote. If you allow enemies of freedom and democracy to publish their views and run for office, you put freedom and democracy at risk. But if you don't allow it, you destroy freedom and democracy right off the bat. So it's a risk you have to take.

None of this is to suggest that all atheists are enemies of freedom and democracy, or even that they are more likely to be than others. I am arguing that atheism and democracy may be incompatible at the collective level, and at the philosophical level; at the individual, practical level, values are formed in a highly social manner, and nothing is more probable than that an atheist living in a liberal, predominantly Christian society should have a perfectly firm commitment to freedom and democracy-- as I'm convinced Christopher Hitchens does.

Re: "the remark that you 'don't claim to know how the world is made; nor do I think I need to' is just ignorance dressed up."

Not ignorance dressed up, I would say; ignorance openly confessed to! I believe that reason does not really give us adequate grounds to know how the world was made, but because we are uncomfortable not knowing, we take the best stories available and cling to them dogmatically. I am advocating a more skeptical outlook.

In future, Publicus, please argue more and ad-hominem less. It would be more enlightening for all of us.

Posted by: Nathan Smith On Wednesday, April 6th

Publicus,

Having been once censored as a troll at Brad DeLong's website, and having castigated him (follow the link but also go to "So I'm a Troll" in Previous Posts) for avoiding an open debate, I feel committed to the principle of not censoring trolls. Well, I don't intend to censor you; and in general, I appreciate your feedback. You sometimes raise interesting points, or (more often) give me an occasion to do so.

But there's a limit. Please hold the ad hominem attacks. I'm not inclined to debate with someone who calls me a liar for example. I genuinely don't remember whether I may have made some adjustments to the post early on. (I don't think so.) But I am absolutely certain that I did not make any changes to the post after, or in reaction to, reading any of the comments.

It's disappointing that your post shows such a preference for insult over argument. You could respond to my charge that scientists don't understand epistemology, for example, by offering a defense of the scientific method as an avenue to truth. That would have been an enlightening contribution to the debate. Instead, you call my view "laughable."

Here's a response to what little of substance there is in your post:

Re: "Your faith is your faith. It's not an argument, and the assertion that 'Christian arguments tend to beat non-Christian arguments' would amuse a Jew, a Muslim, a Taoist...anyone but a dogmatic Christian."

I don't think so. A Jew or Muslim (I don't know much about Taoism) would agree with many of what I call 'Christian arguments' (for the existence of God, the supernatural soul, or moral realism) and would dispute, rather than dismiss, others. "Your faith is your faith" is a typical caricature of religion by someone who is not motivated to try.

Re: "You would have to advocate that no athiest be allowed to hold office if you believe your own assertion that 'Christianity and freedom flourish together.' Anything else would be an attack on the potential freedoms you say you seek to support."

This is an interesting move: you find it difficult to argue against my real position, so you try to impose a different position on me and argue against that. It's a common tactic in argument, but it's rarely this transparent. My answer: in a democracy, you have to allow people to attack freedom, rhetorically and in the political arena. You have to allow opponents of freedom of the press to publish their views. You have to allow anti-democrats to run for office. This can have tragic consequences, as it did in the Weimar Republic, which was ripped apart as anti-democratic parties of the left and right attracted a majority of the vote. If you allow enemies of freedom and democracy to publish their views and run for office, you put freedom and democracy at risk. But if you don't allow it, you destroy freedom and democracy right off the bat. So it's a risk you have to take.

None of this is to suggest that all atheists are enemies of freedom and democracy, or even that they are more likely to be than others. I am arguing that atheism and democracy may be incompatible at the collective level, and at the philosophical level; at the individual, practical level, values are formed in a highly social manner, and nothing is more probable than that an atheist living in a liberal, predominantly Christian society should have a perfectly firm commitment to freedom and democracy-- as I'm convinced Christopher Hitchens does.

Re: "the remark that you 'don't claim to know how the world is made; nor do I think I need to' is just ignorance dressed up."

Not ignorance dressed up, I would say; ignorance openly confessed to! I believe that reason does not really give us adequate grounds to know how the world was made, but because we are uncomfortable not knowing, we take the best stories available and cling to them dogmatically. I am advocating a more skeptical outlook.

In future, Publicus, please argue more and ad-hominem less. It would be more enlightening for all of us.

Posted by: Ramona On Wednesday, April 6th

Scooter, you are expecting too much of a troll.

Posted by: Publicus On Tuesday, April 5th

I'm not amazed at all, Scooter.

Posted by: scooter On Tuesday, April 5th

I'm not snoozing but I'm amazed that Publicus ignores my calls for some statement of what he does believe, instead of what he does not.

Posted by: A nation of Publicus readers On Tuesday, April 5th

Z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z.....

Posted by: Publicus On Tuesday, April 5th

Nathan, please..."I don't remember changing it. Which is not to say I didn't; I may have forgotten." You sound like Oliver North testifying to Congress. You changed your post and tried to make it sound as though I said the thing you said. Admit it.

Your faith is your faith. It's not an argument, and the assertion that "Christian arguments tend to beat non-Christian arguments" would amuse a Jew, a Muslim, a Taoist...anyone but a dogmatic Christian.

Your assertion that "scientists don't understand epistemology" is laughable. Are you saying that you do understand it? You have a gift for denigrating the "tautologies" of others, while being hangtied by your own (which is why you changed your post, after all). in the end you're saying you believe what you believe because you believe it. The high school philosophy references don't lend much weight to your argument because it isn't really an argument in the first place.

You would have to advocate that no athiest be allowed to hold office if you believe your own assertion that "Christianity and freedom flourish together." Anything else would be an attack on the potential freedoms you say you seek to support.

And that smug, complacent thinking behind the remark that you "don't claim to know how the world is made; nor do I think I need to" is just ignorance dressed up. Willful stupidity doesn't burnish your credentials as an opinion-maker here.

Posted by: Nathan Smith On Tuesday, April 5th

Re: "Nathan, would you kindly restore your first post to its original form?"

Huh? I don't remember changing it. Which is not to say I didn't; I may have forgotten. But if so, I don't remember what it originally was. Anyway, as far as I know we're allowed to change posts a little, though of course that could be abused. Sorry...

Re: "And what exactly is a 'Christian stance'?"

A broad Christian worldview, of which tenets include the existence of God and of a supernatural soul; a moral order of the universe; the fallen condition of the world; an ethics centered on love; a belief in the redemption of a fallen world through Jesus Christ, etc.

Re: "Is the Virgin Birth 'coherent in rational terms'?"

Yes, of course. I know what a birth is; I know what a virgin is; I can easily conceive of a virgin giving birth. Of course, that's not the way things usually happen, and it raises gynecological questions. But coherent, sure. If you're dogmatically committed to the proposition that the universal is totally and comprehensively governed by fixed scientific laws, you have to reject that. Just don't forget whose foot the shoe of dogmatism is on here.

Re: "Is the idea that the universe is 6000 years old 'coherent in rational terms'?"

Yes, it's coherent, though I personally don't believe that's true. I do not think Biblical literalism is a tenable position. (Another debate...) Personally, I don't claim to know how the world is made; nor do I think I need to.

Re: "Is Evolution 'coherent in rational terms'?"

Well, yes, but it raises serious problems, because it suggests that minds, equipped with rational intelligence, consciousness, knowledge, an awareness of right and wrong, aesthetic sensibilities, and so on, emerged from strictly material processes. Contemporary philosophers struggle to explain how this is possible; the results are not pretty; and the most honest of them, like Thomas Nagel, admit that the efforts fail, and end up re-affirming an idea that mental processes are not reducible to material processes. Evolution per se is coherent enough (though the theory is infinitely elastic, being founded on tautological claims like "survival of the fittest," and scientists tend to believe it on grounds that would not meet any philosophically tenable standard on proof, because they don't understand epistemology), but it leads people into the trap of having to offer a materialist explanation of mind, which cannot be done.

Posted by: Publicus On Tuesday, April 5th

Nathan, would you kindly restore your first post to its original form?

And what exactly is a "Christian stance"?

Is the Virgin Birth "coherent in rational terms"?

Is the idea that the universe is 6000 years old "coherent in rational terms"?

Is Evolution "coherent in rational terms"?

Posted by: Aaron On Tuesday, April 5th

I think that any of the world's major religions, in their orthodox forms (as in, those who follow every rule to the letter) are incompatible with not only Democracy, but tolerance and basic human rights. As a (very secular) Jew, I learned about the intolerance of Orthodox Jews (and the cult-like Chasidim - I think that's the correct spelling)... which is the same intolerance that has been exhibited by Catholicism in the past, and is shown by Islam now.

Just a side note, I think the thing that makes modern religion self defeating is that the harsh rules of thousands of years ago are ignored in favor of different, more widely accepted rules... which begs the question, who can decide which rules are correct and which aren't in religion? If religion is not infallible, then there's no point, and we'll have to agree on our morals and spirituality on different grounds. I believe in God, or some kind of thing greater than what we can percieve, but I think religion does more hard than good.

that was a huge derail, but I thought it was worth mentioning for the sake of disclosure

Posted by: Nathan Smith On Tuesday, April 5th

I did not say that Christianity can be proven. What I said was that Christian arguments tend to beat non-Christian arguments. To elaborate, if you take a Christian stance and then survey the opposition, you find that it is always possible to demonstrate that rival stances either 1) fail to be coherent in rational terms, or 2) are radically at odds with common sense. Or, to be more precise, there is a scale from (1) to (2): some philosophers (Locke) make sure their arguments arrive at conclusions compatible with common sense, but if you look carefully you find many holes in the arguments, while other philosophers (Leibniz, Descartes, Hobbes) strive very hard to be consistent and end up arriving at conclusions that would strike any normal person as insane. Don't take my word for it: it's quite common for nonreligious philosophers to concede something like this.

We know from the outset that Christianity cannot be proven in the same way that philosophers in the Cartesian tradition aspire to prove their positions, because Christianity is a "mystery." But a broad commitment to Christianity does somehow enable a person to arrive at plausible and humane, albeit partial, positions on every question that comes up (although of course at any given moment in history Christians individually and collectively often fail to do so). That's more than can be said for any of the post-Cartesian rationalism-inspired philosophies.

Posted by: Publicus On Tuesday, April 5th

Nathan, the quote about Christianity being the form of government that best enshrines human dignity comes from you, not from me. It was part of your original post. I quoted you. You know that. If you have some capability to edit your posts here after the fact, it doesn't make your original argument go away.

If Christianity could be "proven" on rational grounds, it would probably have failed centuries ago. The need for proof was what Thomas sought in examining Jesus' hands. You're deliberately missing your own point.

And since you seem quite at home woth retroactively restating your own position, I'll have to be skeptical about you stating someone else's on their behalf. It's grossly unfair to say that "To an atheist (of the usual scientific materialist kind), people are just atoms and molecules bouncing around." That's as much to say that athiests see no value at all in human life, and they they have no ethics or morals. You don't need to belive in God to believe that humanity has some inherent dignity and worth.

What empowers you to speak over and over for other people and what they think?

Kindly confine youself to a truthful statement of your own positions before you indulge in distorting someone else's. Unless of course you feel that an athiest is just molecules bouncing around. In which case we, being good Christians, would be doing nothing immoral by eliminating them.

Posted by: Nathan Smith On Tuesday, April 5th

I would not prevent an atheist from holding office. I advocate complete religious tolerance, and support steps towards that such as ending the state-subsidized promotion of secular humanism in the schools, in favor of vouchers, which allow people to choose the beliefs they will be educated into.

And faith has nothing to do with it. That, in my experience, Christian arguments generally beat non-Christian arguments on a purely rational basis is, for me, a necessary though not sufficient reason to be a Christian. If you can prove to me on rational grounds that Christianity is false, I'll give it up tomorrow.

You ask "Is Christianity really the form of government that best enshrines human dignity?" No, because Christianity is not a form of government. That phrase refers to liberal democracy.

But the link between Christianity, or rather the belief in the supernatural soul, merits further explanation.

Christians believe that humans are made in the image of God. So do Jews; Muslims are in the same tradition and I think they believe more or less the same thing; Hindus and Buddhists believe in the immortality of the soul (more or less, via reincarnation) and so on. These are pretty grand claims on behalf of humanity. These theological claims, under the right circumstances, translate into the political idea of human dignity.

To an atheist (of the usual scientific materialist kind), people are just atoms and molecules bouncing around. Their metaphysics does not leave room for a supernatural soul, or for other non-natural entities like right and wrong. Ultimately, then, they have no basis for treating people differently from other lumps of molecules, which we manipulate for pleasure. Logically, one might expect atheists to be apathetic to throwing out all moral constraints and killing people on a massive scale; and history shows that this is what many atheists-in-power have actually done.

As an answer to Publicus's Nazi anecdote, I found this fascinating nugget:

You are right that Hitler did mention Christianity many times in his writings. He paid Christianity a lot of lip service in Mein Kampf, and he claimed to be a Christian. But Hitler's secretary, Martin Bormann, also declared that "National Socialism [Nazism] and Christianity are irreconcilable" and Hitler didn't squawk too much about it. Similarly, Hermann Rauschning, a Hitler associate, said, "One is either a Christian or a German. You can't be both." In addition, Hitler declared Nazism the state religion and the Bible was replaced by Mein Kampf in the schools. You really want confusion? Randy Alley, one of my best WWII history sources, noted that the SS were supposedly forbidden to believe in God--yet the military's belt buckles said "Gott mit uns" ("God is with us")! See photo, below. (My emphasis)

Posted by: Publicus On Tuesday, April 5th

I appreciate a reasonable response from you, Nathan, but reasonable isn't the same as reasoning. If this is ultimately a question of faith, there's no arguing. You believe what you believe; you believe because you believe; and that's the end of it.

We have to tread very lightly here when we're mixing faith and logical process. The overlap of the two leads to attempting to conduct reasoning processes, which have to be based on measurable empirical evidence, using only the unmeasurable faith that requires no evidence.

Is Christianity really "the form of government which best enshrines human dignity?" You say it as though it's true. It sounds like an empirical conclusion. But really it's only what you believe. Certainly many Christians right here in the US, among them the victims of the child abuse within the Church itself, would question that, including many people inside the faith. Are they less Christian than you?

Would you specifically prevent an athiest from holding public office on the grounds that their way of seeing the world is inherently at odds with the democratic process? If so, aren't you subverting the democratic process, and in effect promoting fascism in the guise of true belief?

I'll remind you that soldiers in the Wehrmacht wore belt buckles inscribed with Gott Mit Uns (God is with us). There was little evidence that it was true, but they believed it, and acted on it.

Careful what company you keep, Nathan.

Scooter, I hope this helps clear things up for you.

Posted by: Nathan Smith On Tuesday, April 5th

I'm not saying Hitchens should withhold his criticism of the Papacy. Didn't I praise Hitchens for it? I offered a few counter-questions, that's all.

As for Hitchens being an atheist, I know from other sources (I've read a book of his, for example) that he is an atheist. By his own account.

I do believe Christianity to be the one true faith, but not the only faith that can sustain democracy: Hinduism can certainly sustain it, as the example of India attests. Catholicism used to be considered incompatible with democracy, but then the Church changed tack, and now the Catholic Church is a force for freedom and positively correlated with democracy worldwide. Sistani may be spearheading the same transformation in Islam. No, it's atheism I'm worried about. So far, atheists in power have been totalitarian. That's because they were also Marxist, true, but now that the EU is slipping out from under American hegemony and growing increasingly irreligious, its economies are growing more dirigiste, while the prerogatives of elected national governments are steadily being usurped by bureaucrats in Brussels. Which leads one to wonder: is atheism ultimately at odds with freedom? Are those who have abandoned the belief in the supernatural soul which underlies the case for human dignity disinclined to preserve the form of government which best enshrines human dignity?

It's a provocative question, at least.

Posted by: Publicus On Tuesday, April 5th

Scooter, ol' buddy, you've never bothered me anywhere enough to provoke an insult.

Nathan says that "Christianity and freedom flourish together, while Hitchens' fellow atheists have mostly been drawn to totalitarianism or the appeasement thereof." Since he mentioned no other faith, it appears to me that he says that athiesm, the belief that there is no God, or denial that God or gods exist, and totalitarianiam are somehow linked and are mutually supportive, while Christianity and freedom are likewise linked. It's a false dichotomy, obviously, but if any kind of belief in God is linked to freedom, how does he explain the conditions of Muslim countries except by saying that as non-Christians they don't believe in God or in a real God? It must be an untrue faith to produce opposite conditions from the freedom Nathan says must be connected with a true faith, Christianity.

He's not clear at all on this so I can see why you don't get it. I'm not sure I do either and that's why I asked. Personally, I worry about Christian evangelical true believers as much as I do about fanatical Muslims. In both, you see a furious refusal to think logically about matters they take on faith. Nathan, care to help Scooter out here?

The guy who seems eager to be insulting is you, Scooter. You've indulged yourself often in that regard. If you'd like, keep it up.

Posted by: scooter On Monday, April 4th

Publicus, I'm trying to extract your inference from Nathan's "the health of liberalism seems to depend on Christianity." I think the point, if I can restate, is that from a political standpoint Christianity fosters one set of conditions, and non-Christians quite another. It's quite a leap from there to Christianity being "the one true religion." I don't see any such argument here - nothing at all about the merits of one faith or another. I don't understand the leap. Could you explain, Publicus? (and make sure you insult me in the process, because I know you're itching to do so)

Posted by: Publicus On Monday, April 4th

There's only one conclusion to draw here and that's that Nathan believes Christianity to be the one true faith. The Saudis are devoutly religious and theirs is a repressive society. (And to say the least, they're rich.) The extremist Muslims are even more devout and more repressive. By our standards they'd be called totalitarian, but their religion infuses every aspect of their society. We're on very friendly terms with the Saudis, too. So evidently it isn't closeness of the relationship a society has with God, it's that the faith they profess is Christian. Nathan, are you telling us that Christianity is the one true religion?

Posted by: Aaron On Monday, April 4th

Are you saying that Hitchens should withhold his criticism of the Pope and the entire Catholic organization because it has been on the side of Democracy in many cases?

And is there evidence to support your claim that anyone who criticizes Christianity is an atheist?

Censorship and name-calling is what I see in your post, as well as more of the kind of "with us or against us" talk that simplifies and dumbs down any debate in politics and religion.

The article you link to is about the Catholic church sheltering a man who is by every account guilty of knowingly allowing priests to molest children as well as knowingly covering up the crime.

Are you defending those actions? Or are you simply trying to make yourself feel better about being aligned with an institution that has fostered child molestors and the criminals who protect them?