Doesn't dickishness in and of itself rely on not being justified?

A Christian speculating with relish on the eternal damnation of a person he disagreed with. Way to affirm a lot of what Hitchens wrote.

Hitchens was a dick, but so are you Father. Hitchens, however, has the benefit of not proselytizing as a shepherd for the meek that shall inherit the earth like you Father de Souza.

It's pretty dickish to think this is political.

Author can go fark himself, he's never even had sex with a woman, who gives a rat's ass what he thinks.

Politics thread?

Summary for those too lazy to click:

"Hitch said mean things about dead people, so I waited until he was dead to say mean things about him. But it's ok and it's not hypocrisy, because I'm a priest. Did I mention that the scriptures are real? It comforts me that a proud atheist is dead, and according to my beliefs, is in hell."

The National Post - proof that Canadians are not immune to derp.

If we could see Hitch's corpse right now, his mouth would be locked into the greatest trollface grin ever.

If nothing else, he wasn't a fraud, like every single person on the planet that claims to believe in god.

He went to shiat with his opinions on Iraq. He stopped meaning anything after 9/11.

He was granted a long farewell, with the opportunity for reconsiderations and reconciliations with those he hated and those he hurt. He declined to take advantage of it.

Ha! It's always amusing to see how incensed hypocrites get when others aren't hypocrites too.

Hitchens made it clear that nothing was sacred, in the religious sense. I'm pretty sure he would not only not care what was said about him after his death (in fact, I'm sure he heard it all before death anyway), but he would surely have had to laugh at the pitiful writing of this weak-minded little tribal medicine man.

He beat you. You lost. He's dead. Get over it.

Author seems particularly upset about Hitchens' treatment of Mother Theresa. Has anyone ever disproven a single one of the important charges he made against her?

Did she not take money from criminals and tyrants? Money, I should add, that was stolen from people. Did the old lady not campaign against women's rights in Ireland and work tirelessly against the very things that would lift people in underdeveloped countries out of poverty?

God gave us the capacity to reason, and therefore to make error, but you're going to Hell if you use it.

As far as Hitch's rather harsh obituaries, he said the same things about those people before they died. Padre Ray here felt it wasn't appropriate to refute what Hitch had to say until after Hitch had died. This is substantially different.

Phil Moskowitz: He went to shiat with his opinions on Iraq. He stopped meaning anything after 9/11.

I disagreed with him 100% on Iraq. But his advocacy for that war forced me to sharpen my own arguments against it.

The fact that people think he was an "intellectual" just goes to show that Idiocracy isn't the future, it's the present.

TravisBickle62: Author can go fark himself, he's never even had sex with a woman, who gives a rat's ass what he thinks.

You know, just reading it like that strikes me as how odd the priesthood is. We're supposed to get advice from a guy who shuns a major part of adulthood? I get it that he's supposed to be reflective and meditative, but he has no experience and no frame of reference in the primary motivator of hunmanity. His only job is is to parrot the current, official interpretation of an ancient book. What value is that?

You likely get more value from Joel Osteen than a priest. *shudder*

mrshowrules: The author of this article masks his contempt much more carefully than Hitchens ever did.

We must have read different articles.

"Christopher Hitchens is dead. By his own lights, he is utterly defunct, decomposing more rapidly than yesterday's newspaper."

"In the mean time, I trust that his soul, even now, is chagrined with the extravagant evasions that marked his death."

"He was himself both hateful and cruel."

"The sadness is that there is a hell for Hitch to go to."

That's just the first three paragraphs. I'm not going to waste time pulling out the rest.

Cagey B: That's just the first three paragraphs. I'm not going to waste time pulling out the rest.

I'm sure Hitchens would prefer that to being posthumously baptized by Ross Douthat (new window)

i mostly just think hitchens was a dick for being such an arm-chair warmonger.

MrEricSir: The fact that people think he was an "intellectual" just goes to show that Idiocracy isn't the future, it's the present.

Well sure, he was no Newt Gingrich or anything...

mrshowrules: Well I read TFA. Well written. Fair and less pompous than I expected. Hitchen's was full off contempt (even hate) but in many cases, it was deserved. Hitchen's did not show mercy in his writing but neither did he ask for it. The author of this article masks his contempt much more carefully than Hitchens ever did.

Hitchens had the courage of his convictions. The article writer, in masking his contempt all while attacking Hitchens for his consistent unabashed frankness, doesn't.

mrshowrules: Because People in power are Stupid: It's great to attack those who can't fight back. In this case -a corpse.

That's right from his own handbook, like going after Mother Theresa. I liked Hitchens and I don't think he would have found fault with being criticized after dying. Didn't read TFA so the criticism might be bullshiat.

1. Hitchens' positions on those people was well known before their deaths. He was trotted out time and again at their deaths precisely because his position was well known, and people wanted a money quote which he was all too happy to provide. Fox with Fallwell is the perfect example.

2. The Missionary Position was written in 1995, two years before she died...

True, calling out the jihadist movement in every major public forum after they condemned Salman Rushdie to death as a legitimate target of assassination, that's not courageous in the least. Oh and every other major power involved in the middle east at one point or another, and every political leader he disagreed with, and every religious fanatic he took on... Not to mention putting himself in harms way in these countries that he'd actually visit and speak in, and deface political posters, and get the shiat kicked out of him for it. Or that time he let himself be waterboarded, or (shudder) got a Brazilian wax.

Yeah, what a coward he was.

/rolleyes

Mr_Fabulous: Phil Moskowitz: He went to shiat with his opinions on Iraq. He stopped meaning anything after 9/11.

I disagreed with him 100% on Iraq. But his advocacy for that war forced me to sharpen my own arguments against it.

Really? I just felt sorry for him. He disgraced himself and he was someone I respected.

Phil Moskowitz: Mr_Fabulous: Phil Moskowitz: He went to shiat with his opinions on Iraq. He stopped meaning anything after 9/11.

I disagreed with him 100% on Iraq. But his advocacy for that war forced me to sharpen my own arguments against it.

Really? I just felt sorry for him. He disgraced himself and he was someone I respected.

Somewhere along the line, he bought into the neocon worldview, in a very big-picture way. But as in all matters, to understand his POV one needs to view it through the Hitch-prism. He was against theocracy, first and foremost, and in favor of imposing an orderly rationalism in its place.

Like many neocons, I think he viewed the Iraq conflict as a necessary first step in remaking the region.

MAN. People get pissed when you point out their gods are imaginary. Maybe the author should have dedicated his life to a more real endeavor, like snipe hunting, or finding an honest politician.

Phil Moskowitz: Really? I just felt sorry for him. He disgraced himself and he was someone I respected.

How did he disgrace himself? His position on Iraq grew, to a great extent, from his support of the Kurds. He had a long record of supporting the overthrow of tyrants who ran their countries into the ground. It's not mentioned often but he supported the British war in the Falklands.

Hitchens, like many others, was critical of the way the war and the occupation was prosecuted and, while I disagree with him on this particular intervention, I think it would be silly to believe his support for the war was not at least well thought out. It's also foolish to judge an entire career on one position. But moral grandstanding is appealing to some people.

mrshowrules: The author's conviction is to show mercy. To that extent, he is also sticking to his conviction. The author presents a well-written and a fair response/opinion on Hitchens death. I don't believe in hell/heaven but considering how outspoken Hitchens was, the author was down right kind.

Put that way I can kind of see that my point was a bit harsh or maybe even wrong, but is it really merciful to hope Hitchens goes to Hell for exercising his "God given" faculty of critical reason without succumbing to hypocritical correctness?

The sadness is that there is a hell for Hitch to go to. He was granted a long farewell, with the opportunity for reconsiderations and reconciliations with those he hated and those he hurt. He declined to take advantage of it. Mother Teresa is fine, and no doubt prays for her enemies, including that Hitchens would be delivered both from hell and the nihilistic oblivion, which he thought awaited him.

Lulz...

mrshowrules: Thorndyke Barnhard: mrshowrules: Well I read TFA. Well written. Fair and less pompous than I expected. Hitchen's was full off contempt (even hate) but in many cases, it was deserved. Hitchen's did not show mercy in his writing but neither did he ask for it. The author of this article masks his contempt much more carefully than Hitchens ever did.

Hitchens had the courage of his convictions. The article writer, in masking his contempt all while attacking Hitchens for his consistent unabashed frankness, doesn't.

The author's conviction is to show mercy. To that extent, he is also sticking to his conviction. The author presents a well-written and a fair response/opinion on Hitchens death. I don't believe in hell/heaven but considering how outspoken Hitchens was, the author was down right kind.

the article was full of contempt. mostly barely masked. we saw it. plain as day.

huh guys.