January 5, 2009

"Is nothing sacred?"

"No, nothing is sacred. And even if there were to be something called sacred, we mere primates wouldn’t be able to decide which book or which idol or which city was the truly holy one. Thus, the only thing that should be upheld at all costs and without qualification is the right of free expression, because if that goes, then so do all other claims of right as well."
Posted by Ann Althouse at 4:17 PM
Tags: , , ,

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

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.

1/5/09, 4:35 PM
Brian O'Connell said...

Off with his head, then.

1/5/09, 4:42 PM
George M. Spencer said...

The "Is Nothing Sacred?" cover from the National Lampoon.

Excellent splatter.

With Neal Adams' "Son O' God" comix!

1/5/09, 5:03 PM
ricpic said...

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.

1/5/09, 5:13 PM
knox said...

Why all the hostility? Hitchens' religion-bashing is annoying, and he certainly wears it thin, but I agree with his basic point here.

1/5/09, 5:28 PM
Geoff Matthews said...

How about, there are things sacred, but that's none of the law's business?

1/5/09, 5:35 PM
Richard Fagin said...

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.

1/5/09, 5:40 PM
Jeremy said...

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.

1/5/09, 5:47 PM
Ken Pidcock said...

...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?

1/5/09, 9:21 PM
amba said...

In the picture at that link, there's something very slightly Satanically Jack Nicholson about Salman Rushdie.

1/5/09, 10:32 PM
Athena DePaul said...

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.

1/6/09, 1:34 AM
knox said...

there's something very slightly Satanically Jack Nicholson about Salman Rushdie.

Wendy, I'm hoooooooooooome!

1/6/09, 7:25 AM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)