I betcha Hitchens, without breaking stride, could affirm the sacredness of free speech, deny the sacredness of private property rights, and admit to no inconsistency therein.*
* Okay, I don't know whether therein is grammatically correct in the above sentence but I couldn't resist. I'm trying to get back in Vicky's good graces, donchyaknow.
I'd also like to say, and with the utmost respect, genuflecting all the way, that blacks and gays are sacred.
You're right, Knox, but the hostility illustrates an important point. One of the essential fairy tales all kids need to learn is the Boy Who Cried Wolf. When one is continually annoying with sillines such as Hitchens and his religion bashing, the profound stuff tends to get lost in the din.
We could save ourselves a lot of misery with a general dissemination of Wolf, along with The Little Red Hen, The Goose That Laid Golden Eggs, and my personal favorite sycophant basher, The Emperor's New Clothes.
knox - His basic point is that "nothing is sacred ... except for the thing that I think is sacred." Plus, I think there's a much better argument to be made that all individual rights are derived from the right to personal property - not free expression.
...and my personal favorite sycophant basher, The Emperor's New Clothes.
So, if we all agree that Hitchens is a self-important jerk, we can just ignore anyone who comes along and points out the obvious fact that the man can write.
Are there no standards by which we can judge the objective correctness or a religious doctrine and thereby determine which claims to holiness are correct?
Hitch has no religion, but likes to talk, so that's the sacred thing. Other than that truly weird assertion in the last paragraph, the article is fantastic.
I am a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for me to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.
Encourage Althouse by making a donation:
Make a 1-time donation or set up a monthly donation of any amount you choose:
१२ टिप्पण्या:
Christopher Hitchens uses the brains God gave him to write silly books and columns explaining why God does not exist.
He has difficulty understanding that there is a power higher than himself. He is his own supreme being.
Off with his head, then.
The "Is Nothing Sacred?" cover from the National Lampoon.
Excellent splatter.
With Neal Adams' "Son O' God" comix!
I betcha Hitchens, without breaking stride, could affirm the sacredness of free speech, deny the sacredness of private property rights, and admit to no inconsistency therein.*
* Okay, I don't know whether therein is grammatically correct in the above sentence but I couldn't resist. I'm trying to get back in Vicky's good graces, donchyaknow.
I'd also like to say, and with the utmost respect, genuflecting all the way, that blacks and gays are sacred.
Why all the hostility? Hitchens' religion-bashing is annoying, and he certainly wears it thin, but I agree with his basic point here.
How about, there are things sacred, but that's none of the law's business?
You're right, Knox, but the hostility illustrates an important point. One of the essential fairy tales all kids need to learn is the Boy Who Cried Wolf. When one is continually annoying with sillines such as Hitchens and his religion bashing, the profound stuff tends to get lost in the din.
We could save ourselves a lot of misery with a general dissemination of Wolf, along with The Little Red Hen, The Goose That Laid Golden Eggs, and my personal favorite sycophant basher, The Emperor's New Clothes.
knox - His basic point is that "nothing is sacred ... except for the thing that I think is sacred." Plus, I think there's a much better argument to be made that all individual rights are derived from the right to personal property - not free expression.
...and my personal favorite sycophant basher, The Emperor's New Clothes.
So, if we all agree that Hitchens is a self-important jerk, we can just ignore anyone who comes along and points out the obvious fact that the man can write.
Is that the lesson here?
In the picture at that link, there's something very slightly Satanically Jack Nicholson about Salman Rushdie.
Are there no standards by which we can judge the objective correctness or a religious doctrine and thereby determine which claims to holiness are correct?
Hitch has no religion, but likes to talk, so that's the sacred thing. Other than that truly weird assertion in the last paragraph, the article is fantastic.
there's something very slightly Satanically Jack Nicholson about Salman Rushdie.
Wendy, I'm hoooooooooooome!
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा