In writing this piece, I’m reminded of a little exchange between the late William F. Buckley and friend and fellow National Review writer Florence King. Buckley had just penned some less-than-flattering words about a recently deceased person of prominence whose name escapes me, and King chided him, saying something to the effect that he had broken ground in journalism: the “attack-obit.” Buckley’s response was, “Wait till you see the obituary I have planned for you!”
And in writing this critical article about bon vivant Christopher Hitchens in the wake of his death this past Thursday, I expect some ridicule as well. Yet I don’t think Hitchens would demand to be spared the acidic ink he used to eviscerate others — or that he would have any credibility doing so. Remember that this was the man who, before the gentle Jerry Falwell’s body was even cold, said things such as “If he [Falwell] had been given an enema, he could have been buried in a matchbox” and “I wish there was a Hell for Falwell.”
For my part, I wouldn’t wish eternal damnation on Hitchens; I truly hope he rests in peace. But I can’t say the same for his legacy. And when I see the obligatory exaltation of his life’s work — with secular icons, the deader they get, the better they were — I think that legacy needs a little damnation.
Read the rest here.
At least Hitchens wasn't a rabid homophobe who spread lies and hatred of gay people ,
or an anti-abortion fanatic who murdered doctors and bombed women's health clinics,
didn't want to see gay people executed or have people executed for "blasphemy",
didn't want to make non-christians second-class citizens or want to turn any country into a Christian or Muslim theocracy, among other things.
All these evils are the result of religious fanaticism .And of course, he never flew an airplane into a tall building or advocated stoning women to death for adultery, or executing doctors who performed abortions .
The claim that atheism is responsible for the millions of people murdered by such monsters as Stalin,Mao Zedong,and Pol Pot is disingenuous . They were not evil monsters because they were atheists , but because they were evil to the core in the first place .
The overwhelming majority of atheists are nothing like this ,including Hitchens. He may very well have been a far more decent and honorable man than many who claim to be religious .
Posted by: Robert Berger | December 20, 2011 at 12:23 PM
as long time critic of hitchens as well as a fellow atheist it is the nastiest and saddest argument that hitchens was athiest because he needed to hide his "sins". He was an atheist and a special atheist because he was clear and strong about the lack of evidence for a christian goddett and because his arguments about Christian "godliness" were so clear. Mother Theresa WAS a monster, she took money from Baby Doc in haiti, she prefered suffering to healing. Unfortunately he supported the war in Iraq, we are all flawed beasts but as an intellectual giant I would take him against a fearful apologist any day!
Posted by: yoyo | January 09, 2012 at 03:38 AM
"...gentle Jerry Falwell..."
Yeah, I stopped reading there.
Posted by: Patrick | March 02, 2012 at 05:45 PM
"The claim that atheism is responsible for the millions of people murdered by such monsters as Stalin,Mao Zedong,and Pol Pot is disingenuous . They were not evil monsters because they were atheists , but because they were evil to the core in the first place ."
nonsense.
they were evil because of they were atheists.
Posted by: gray man | January 01, 2017 at 12:08 PM