05/17/2007
Christopher Hitchens Challenges Credibility of 'People of Faith'
"Author and outspoken atheist" Christopher Hitchens went off on the late Reverend Jerry Falwell to Anderson Cooper last night, beginning his interview by saying, "I think it's a pity there isn't a hell for him to go to." He ended it by condemning the theocratic sensibility that has taken over conservative American politics and the White House.
You certainly don't have to be an atheist to agree with his points.
Here are some excerpts from the rest of the interview...
"The empty life of this ugly little charlatan proves only one thing, that you can get away with the most extraordinary offenses to morality and to truth in this country if you will just get yourself called reverend. Who would, even at your network, have invited on such a little toad to tell us that the attacks of September the 11th were the result of our sinfulness and were God's punishment if they hadn't got some kind of clerical qualification?
People like that should be out in the street, shouting and hollering with a cardboard sign and selling pencils from a cup. The whole consideration of this -- of this horrible little person is offensive to very, very many of us who have some regard for truth and for morality, and who think that ethics do not require that lies be told to children by evil old men, that we're -- we're not told that people who believe like Falwell will be snatched up into heaven, where I'm glad to see he skipped the rapture, just found on the floor of his office, while the rest of us go to hell.
How dare they talk to children like this? How dare they raise money from credulous people on their huckster-like (INAUDIBLE) radio stations, and fly around in private jets, as he did, giggling and sniggering all the time at what he was getting away with?
How dare he say, for example, that the Antichrist is already present among us and is an adult male Jew, while, all the time, fawning on the worst elements in Israel, with his other hand pumping anti-Semitic innuendoes into American politics, along with his friends Robertson and Graham...encouraging -- encouraging -- encouraging the most extreme theocratic fanatics and maniacs on the West Bank and in Gaza not to give an inch of what he thought of was holy land to the people who already live there, undercutting and ruining every democratic and secularist in the Jewish state in the name of God?
I think he was a conscious charlatan and bully and fraud.
And I think, if he read the Bible at all -- and I would doubt that he could actually read any long book of -- at all -- that he did so only in the most hucksterish, as we say, Bible-pounding way.
I'm going to repeat what I said before about the Israeli question. It's very important. Jerry Falwell kept saying to his own crowd, yes, you have got to like the Jews, because they can make more money in 10 minutes than you can make in a lifetime. He was always full, as his friends Robertson and Graham are and were, of anti- Semitic innuendo.
Yet, in the most base and hypocritical way, he encouraged the worst elements among Jewry. He got Menachem Begin to give him the Jabotinsky Medal, celebrating an alliance between Christian fundamentalism and Jewish fanaticism that has ruined the chances for peace in the Middle East.
Lots of people are going to die and are already leading miserable lives because of the nonsense preached by this man, and because of the absurd way that we credit anyone who can say they're a person of faith.
Look, the president endangers us this way. He meets a KGB thug like Vladimir Putin, and, because he is wearing a crucifix around his neck, says, I'm dealing with a man of faith. He's a man of goodwill.
Look what Putin has done to American and European interests lately. What has the president said to take back this absurd remark? It's time to stop saying that, because someone preaches credulity and credulousness, and claims it as a matter of faith, that we should respect them."
(via wonkette)
Posted 9:35 AM EST by Andy Towle in George W. Bush, Jerry Falwell, News, Religion | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
THe "INAUDIBLE" was "Elmer Gantry" radio stations.
Posted by: Christopher | May 17, 2007 9:45:37 AM
I love how the media always interviews extremist for any interview. This guy is on the total opposite spectrum of Jerry Falwell. I have to agree with his point on the reverend comment. You can say anything intolerent and get away with it. Look at Al Sharpton's recent comment. Nothing happened to him other than a few news stories. Maybe Don Imus should have been called reverend.
I don't like his comment about Billy Graham. I disagree with some things Billy says. I really have never known him to spread hate in his messages like Falwell. Just like anyone there are good Christians and bad ones. It just bugs me that since I'm a Christian and gay then I feel like I'm betraying my community. I go to a church that allows openly gay members and i'm still seen by my community as a back stabber. Damned if I do and damned if I don't I guess.
On a lighter note and this is totally in fun and jest, : I do believe we finally have a face to put with Leland's comments. Ha Ha. (Leland, we disagree on many things but I still respect you.)
Posted by: Matt | May 17, 2007 9:46:32 AM
I watched some interesting discussion on Falwell on The o'Reilly Factor last night. Bill O'Reilly was saying Falwell could be hateful and bigotted and was wrong to single out groups like gays to demonize, but that the heavy ferocious criticism of him should be put aside for a respectable time period, at least until after his family buries him, etc. Most of O'Reilly's guests said they disagreed, and that Falwell chose to make himself a public figure, so why should the "attacks" wait?
Posted by: MJ | May 17, 2007 9:46:39 AM
I think Hitchens was talking about Franklin Graham, not Billy. Franklin is, I believe, more extreme than his father, although people forget that Billy Graham started out as a faith healer in tent revivals across the south. He was a huckster who cleaned up his act and got respectable.
Posted by: sam | May 17, 2007 9:56:59 AM
matt
Well when the media pushes out 99.99999999999% "jerry was a great humanitarian", the one voice of reason being christopher is a good thing.
My grandmother called me up on the day Jerry died "You have to turn on Anderson Cooper, finaly there is one person not bending over backward about falwell" in refference to Christopher Hitchens being on Cooper's news show.
PS Christopher Hitchens who I despise otherwise on his political views (he thinks Iraq war a good thing and Bush isn't as bad as everyone thinks) is not an extremists. Science and logic both dictate that there is no god.
Hitchens book
"God is NOT great; How religion ruins everything" will be a best seller
PSS; my brothers and sisters, it appears that the only voice of reason pointing out that Falwell was a horrible person is the atheist evolutionist. Everybody else is dismiossing falwell's hate of gays. "He didn't hate gays, he loved gays. He wanted them to stop sinning" That is the general spiel being spouted all over the media. in the end it is the atheist evolutionisty who actualy has the gay communities back on this one.
Posted by: pacificoceanboy | May 17, 2007 9:57:21 AM
matt
Well when the media pushes out 99.99999999999% "jerry was a great humanitarian", the one voice of reason being christopher is a good thing.
My grandmother called me up on the day Jerry died "You have to turn on Anderson Cooper, finaly there is one person not bending over backward about falwell" in refference to Christopher Hitchens being on Cooper's news show.
PS Christopher Hitchens who I despise otherwise on his political views (he thinks Iraq war a good thing and Bush isn't as bad as everyone thinks) is not an extremists. Science and logic both dictate that there is no god.
Hitchens book
"God is NOT great; How religion ruins everything" will be a best seller
PSS; my brothers and sisters, it appears that the only voice of reason pointing out that Falwell was a horrible person is the atheist evolutionist. Everybody else is dismiossing falwell's hate of gays. "He didn't hate gays, he loved gays. He wanted them to stop sinning" That is the general spiel being spouted all over the media. In the end it is the atheist evolutionisty who actualy has the gay communities back on this one.
Posted by: pacificoceanboy | May 17, 2007 9:57:46 AM
Thanks for the note Sam. I had totally forgotten about Franklin Graham.
Posted by: Matt | May 17, 2007 10:04:14 AM
I'm a self-professed Christian but I couldn't agree more with what Hitchens said in this interview.
I also agree with the people on O'Reilly who said that Falwell was a media whore who was never concerned with propriety or holding back his opinion out of respect for the dead. It was September 13, BEFORE THE DUST HAD SETTLED AT THE WORLD TRADE CENTER, when he went on a national broadcast and blamed secularist, gays, lesbians, feminist, abortionist and the ACLU for causing the tragedy.
It seems that people are expecting those who were the targets of his constant hate to be more "Christian" and more compassionate and more loving than their "man of God" was to others.
I think some people are going a bit over the top, but I won't judge them because I know how much hurt, pain and shame this man caused. If I'm unwilling to chastise Jews for celebrating Hitler's death and I'm unwilling to chastise Iraqi's for cheering at the news of Saddam's death then I'm certainly not going to chastise gays, or others, for celebrating at the news of Falwells demise.
I find it astonishing that the news media has either forgotten or has chosen to ignore Falwell's record of racism, segregation support and obsessive apartheid support. They are making it sound like his only controversial positions had to do with HOMOSEXUALS and abortion. I guess they're afraid that reminding people about his shameful record on racial issues might make him seem mean and out of touch, whereas being homophobic and antt-abortion just makes him seem like a hip contemporary social conservative and Christian values promoter. We certainly wouldn't want to tarnish that image with the facts now would we?
As for Hitchens being the face of Leland, Matt, I think that would be a little inaccurate. Pacific Ocean Boy maybe, but not Leland. I'm sure POB would PROUDLY agree!
Matt, you might want to do a little research before you claim that Billy Graham didn't make hateful statements. He was certainly no Falwell but he had a few choice hateful tirades of his own. Thankfully he seems to have mellowed and grown in compassion and understanding in his old age. The same could NOT be said of Falwell.
Posted by: Zeke | May 17, 2007 10:13:51 AM
Wow. A liberal blowhard with a book to peddle dancing on the grave of an extremist wingnut. And via CNN, no less! Double wow.
Leave it to Andy Towle to report all the news that counts.
Posted by: Psychedelic Pariah | May 17, 2007 10:17:21 AM
I find it interesting to compare this reaction of Hitchen's with Larry Flynt's. I'm not sure exactly what this says, but the differences are notable.
It's also strange how Falwell's detractors are seemingly willing to do away with personal responsibility. The assumption seems to be that his demagoguery was so irresistible that people became incapable of making their own choices and followed him blindly. I'm not sure this was the case, while Falwell may have served as a living rally point, those ideas and feelings existed in the population prior to Falwell and still exist after his passing. To charge him with creating them, as Hitchen's and others seem to do, is giving the man far too much power and ignoring the real problem of a populace so desperate for leadership and so lacking in critical thinking that they'll look to anyone with a loud voice and a touch of charisma. The problem wasn't Falwell, the problem was and is people.
Another of the charges being leveled against Falwell is being a shyster and rooking the elderly and the gullible out of their money. While there is perhaps something to be said about a fool being parted from his money, when it comes to the elderly, the charge seems to fall a bit flat. The elderly, the ones who gave and continue to give to Falwell and his institution, are largely marginalized and ignored by our society. We don't value them until we can use them to score political points. It seems that people are all up in arms about how they were being robbed by Falwell, yet how many of those critics took time out of our weeks to visit shut-ins or anyone the world has passed by? Not family, mind you, because you have to do that, or friends, but strangers who are lonely, who truthfully don't have a lot of money to begin with and who feel useless and forgotten. From his beginnings in televangelism, Falwell came into these people's homes and provided companionship on some level. He spoke to them and offered them comfort and hope when so many others were just wishing they'd die, trying to pack them off to homes or simply ignoring them completely. I don't think it's completely true that Falwell was a huckster because he was giving something of value to these people and if they bought it we only have ourselves to blame for creating a society that eagerly leaves them behind.
Posted by: QuakerJono | May 17, 2007 10:18:23 AM
See, I knew Hitchens would better be compared to POB.
I personally think that that is a complement. I have no doubt that POB would agree.
Posted by: Zeke | May 17, 2007 10:19:34 AM
Hi Zeke: I'm definitely not an atheist, either, but I agree with much of what Hitchens says too. Atheists' viewpoints can often be useful for overall views on things.
Posted by: Joe T. | May 17, 2007 10:21:05 AM
Zeke,
I'm absolutely sure that Billy had some tirades of his own. I believe there were several news stories back several years ago about stuff he said in the nixon years. I do agree with your point that he has mellowed and changed. I guess what I was saying is that he has never said things like Aids is god's punishment or that we caused 9/11.
Posted by: Matt | May 17, 2007 10:23:56 AM
Psychedelic Pariah, which is it, "extremist wingnut" or man who won the 1980, 2000 and 2004 elections for the Republicans by making religious fundamentalism mainstream?
The news media is portraying him as the latter and not the former.
When someone presents the former in a mainstream media environment that IS news.
I have a suspicion that you would consider ANYONE who portrayed Falwell as an "extremist wingnut", on national TV, a liberal blowhard. Just a hunch.
Posted by: Zeke | May 17, 2007 10:30:13 AM
"Wow. A liberal blowhard with a book to peddle dancing on the grave of an extremist wingnut. And via CNN, no less! Double wow."
Hitchens is no liberal. He walked away from the Left and embraced the neoconservative Right. He has said and written many stupid things, although I actually agree with much of what he talks about in the interview and book. But yeah, he is a blowhard.
And CNN sucks. They sold their souls to be Faux News Lite and left any shred of their credibility miles behind them. Let's face it: the American media is all about making money, not really reporting the news or educating the public on issues. Loudmouths, extremists, etc. all get more attention (i.e., eyeballs locked on TV screens) than do rational, reasonable people.
Hitchens is probably one of my least favorite people and everything he says must be treated with skepticism. Having said that, it does look like he's done a good job with his current book. I may thumb through it at B&N, but will not buy it because I won't put a single penny into the pockets of such a heinous, horrible man as Hitchens.
Posted by: Jonathon | May 17, 2007 10:30:49 AM
We always here about how awful Fox and CNN are. One is too liberal, one is too conservative. Does anyone watch MSNBC?
Posted by: Matt | May 17, 2007 10:44:32 AM
I meant "hear" not "here" in my last comment. Wow that was really bad grammar.
Posted by: Matt | May 17, 2007 10:45:35 AM
Zeke, Hitchens was once a liberal (a crazy one at that) but I would argue its safe to say he is pretty conservative now, at least in today's modern political setting.
Posted by: Ryan | May 17, 2007 10:46:56 AM
Christopher Hitchens is an arrogant prick and a drunk.
But he's usually right. And we need at least one non-fundie extremist to counter the numerous extremists of the religious right.
Posted by: chrisb | May 17, 2007 10:59:24 AM
Hitchens thinks the Iraq war was and is a great and glorious thing. he also publicly states that Bush is a pretty good president. That is far from liberal.
Zeke, :-) I wish!!!!!!!! I had a cool british accent. I also wish I was 1/2 as elloquent. i doubt he prints out things with as many typos as i do. :-)
Yes, the feelings were there in the masases and Falwell exploited them. he did also FAN those flames to larger heights and greater hate. The hate would have been less if falwell and his ilk had not been there to give excuses for hate.
Posted by: pacificoceanboy | May 17, 2007 11:01:46 AM
Zeke: Huh? Falwell = extremist wingnut. Just because he was incredibly useful does not make him any less so.
Posted by: Psychedelic Pariah | May 17, 2007 11:01:56 AM
Oops.
And for the rest of the unwashed masses, I tend to use the moniker "liberal" on those I consider idiots, and not so much in the political sense of the term.
Sorry for the confusion.
Posted by: Psychedelic Pariah | May 17, 2007 11:04:24 AM
"the news media has either forgotten or has chosen to ignore Falwell's record of racism, segregation support and obsessive apartheid support."
Yeah, where is the liberal media bias we always hear conservatives whining about? IT DOESN'T EXIST. It's as imaginary as the God Hitchins doesn't believe in.
As for atheism, I'm a proud Christian Evolutionist. I believe in the Big Bang, I believe in Homo erectus (that's not a Latin Porn movie title, boys), so I am atheist-tolerant I guess.
But some atheists do wear their belief on their sleeve, much like a religion. I've always found that a bit ironic.
Posted by: mark m | May 17, 2007 11:12:28 AM
The only reason Christopher Hitchens SEEMS extreme in his views on this matter is that society has afforded religion a special protective cloack that immunizes it from any form of criticism that you have all be conditioned to believe it deserves.
If he was a film critic slamming the latest Spiderman movie, you wouldn't have thought him too extreme but because he, rightly, points at the ridiculous amount of garbage one can say in public if only they do it in the name of "religion" you are all up in arms calling Hitchens an "extremist" You are confusing HONESTY with extremism.
Posted by: ReasonBased | May 17, 2007 11:13:45 AM
MSNBC? You mean the Don Imus/Ann Coulter Network?
As for Billy Graham, his demonization of gays might have come in a softer package but it has always been demonization nonetheless. Falwell just set fire to it and kept throwing gas on the flames so I'm disgusted by the "don't blame General Custer for the fact that his troops slaughtered Indians" crap.
But back to Graham—his ego twisted him into someone who could simultaneously preach to the multitudes that it was a sin even to lust, that they would burn in the fires of HELLLUH! and turn a blind eye to his friend Nixon raping civil liberties at home and raising the rivers of blood flowing through Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos. What would Jesus do? He would tell Billy Graham and his son that they were nothing like him.
And, yes, Hitchens can be brilliant, as he was above, not just in his nailing theism and Falwell but particularly in calling the networks to account for making a demagogue like Falwell a star, but when he applies that brilliance to defending the invasion of Iraq or smirking about fags in his essay on fellatio [too bad he didn't have the balls to ask Anderson, "What's the big deal about admitting you like cock?" but alcoholism leads to impotence], he's to be loathed.
Posted by: Leland | May 17, 2007 11:14:44 AM