All that is true, and I disagree with him about that, but that view is hardly "radical" or "fundamentalist". I don't know if you've actually read his argument, but it's probably the best defense of the war there is. Still not compelling to me, but there it is.Moondance said:He was (and to my knowledge still remains) one of the greatest proponents of the US led invasion of Iraq, an illegal and unneccesary war fought under false pretenses which has to date resulted in the deaths of half a million Iraqis (although some estimates are much higher). I've heard him defend the invasion as recently as 2008, and it was still as balls to the wall unapologetic and lacking any concern for the humanitarian crisis that it caused.
He does not say that religion represents the greatest moral evil. But he is one of the more visible modern-day advocates of the idea that religion is evil and immoral, but that notion is centuries old, and is hardly radical.Moondance said:Also it is pretty radical (although not unique to him) to claim that religion represents the greatest moral evil to society.
Are you aware that Hitchens has written an entire book about her, The Missionary Position. That's hardly a "petty critique".Moondance said:And also to write petty critiques of certain figures like the Blessed Teresa (which you have already referred to) who has provided aid, both medical and spiritual to some of the most downtrodden and abandoned people in the world, and has been a positive force in the lives of millions of people. The Blessed Teresa touched far more lives in one day of her work, than Hitchens' books or columns for Vanity Fair or Slate has done in his lifetime so far.
Do you judge all books by their covers? Or just this one? (I'd be shocked and quite pleased if you actually read it).Moondance said:Okay, I'm biased, i thoroughly dislike the man, but what does he expect when he writes a book called How Religion Poisons Everything.