In a new post in Vanity Fair, Christopher Hitchens gives his take on the 10 Commandments. (Does it seem weird to anyone else that he writes for Vanity Fair?) After going through all ten, he concludes with the omissions:
It’s difficult to take oneself with sufficient seriousness to begin any sentence with the words “Thou shalt not.” But who cannot summon the confidence to say: Do not condemn people on the basis of their ethnicity or color. Do not ever use people as private property. Despise those who use violence or the threat of it in sexual relations. Hide your face and weep if you dare to harm a child. Do not condemn people for their inborn nature—why would God create so many homosexuals only in order to torture and destroy them? Be aware that you too are an animal and dependent on the web of nature, and think and act accordingly. Do not imagine that you can escape judgment if you rob people with a false prospectus rather than with a knife. Turn off that fucking cell phone—you have no idea how unimportant your call is to us. Denounce all jihadists and crusaders for what they are: psychopathic criminals with ugly delusions. Be willing to renounce any god or any religion if any holy commandments should contradict any of the above. In short: Do not swallow your moral code in tablet form.
“(Does it seem weird to anyone else that he writes for Vanity Fair? )”
No, he comes across as an elitist; that fits right in with Vanity Fair’s collection of movie stars, elitists, sports figures, etc. Think of all those great Dominick Dunne stories taking down rich Beverly Hills kids who killed their parents, O.J. Simpson, etc.
I love Hitchens (but not his stand on the Iraqi war) and, when I find a copy, Vanity Fair.
Have you actually read the mag? Are you aware that editor Graydon Carter printed many anti-Bush, pro-environment, pro-human rights articles? Wealthy =/= elitist. Smart =/= elitist. After watching some of Hitchens’ debates, I’d say he is merciful to the dimwitted, though not to the willfully ignorant.
He was on Freethought radio the other week talking about this article. It was pretty interesting
“Thou shall not believeth Hitchens, for he knoweth not what he talketh about”.
Except for everything he says in the that quip is perfectly reasonable, and there is no moral or logical argument against it.
Irony, thy name is John C.
No, see, that’s exactly the kind of thing it would be stupid to follow. Hitchens is appealing to reason by saying, “You can tell what is moral and what is immoral, and when you can’t, you can try to figure it out. Don’t just trust what some anonymous book tells you.”
So we don’t care whether that paragraph was written by Hitchens or by Elvis or by the Pope, the reasoning stands on its own.
I guess it only makes sense to you if it’s in the pages of some text where you’ve been led to believe an invisible sky friend acted as a dictator to a bunch of Bronze Age stenographers when he wasn’t busy flooding, smiting, or otherwise royally screwing over humankind.
Wait! Did John C just accuse someone of not knowing what they were talking about? Holy fuckballs.
I bet you didn’t even read them.
John C- do you disagree with him? We should condemn people on the basis of their ethnicity or sexual orientation? We should hurt children? We should encourage violence in sexual relations? Exactly what do you mean when you say he doesn’t know what he’s talking about?
Knowing a fair handful of people in the kink community, I’d have to amend that to “Despise those who use nonconsensual violence or the threat of it in sexual relations.”
… I was thinking about that, really. Nothing wrong with BDSM.
What I keep wondering, is if it is consensual, is it still violence.
I mean, we don’t consider surgery violence.
I think a key component of the definition of violence is action which is “injurious” or “causes pain”. Surgery doesn’t directly do that, since its purpose is to remove or repair injury, and the person undergoing it is generally insensitive to pain as it occurs. On the other hand, regardless of consent, the point of BDSM play in part is to cause pain or injury.
Ah, but when you wake up…
There are lots of actions that cause pain that we do not consider violence.
Thought Merriam-Webster could help us out here:
Main Entry: vi·o·lence
Pronunciation: ˈvī-lən(t)s, ˈvī-ə-
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1 a : exertion of physical force so as to injure or abuse (as in warfare effecting illegal entry into a house) b : an instance of violent treatment or procedure
2 : injury by or as if by distortion, infringement, or profanation : outrage
3 a : intense, turbulent, or furious and often destructive action or force b : vehement feeling or expression : fervor; also : an instance of such action or feeling c : a clashing or jarring quality : discordance
4 : undue alteration (as of wording or sense in editing a text)
Unless you count John C’s violence to the English language in many of his comments (definition 4), I am assuming that it is definition 1 we are concerned with. I guess the goal would be injury – if violence is consensual, the goal is pleasure. Maybe motive is the main issue in this question????
That is my gut feeling on it. If I injure you to give you pleasure, because you have asked me to, then I don’t know that I can really call that violence.
But I was asking because I wasn’t really sure if that holds up.
The first amendment.
Turn off your cell phone? Really? That makes the same list as domestic violence and theft and jihad and racism?
It’s a textbook case of a common comedic technique.
Eh, I guess it just didn’t strike me as funny. Maybe if I’d heard it spoken, with the right delivery, but in text it just fell flat.
You’re definitely right about that; it wasn’t funny. But I do think that sort of effect was what he was going for.
As someone who’s had to listen to such conversations (together with everyone within earshot), I’d say it definitely belongs there. Being on the same list doesn’t put them all at the same level. Even with the original ones (well, one set of them), you had kill and covet on the same list.
Dawkins has very dry humour – let’s give him a break – he’s a theorist & writer, not a comedian.
Plus he’s English.
Dawkins? Are you retarded? Cristopher Hitchens wrote that dude.
Yes, because only retarded people make labeling mistakes.
Cristopher? Are you retarded? It’s Christopher.
Typo – so sorry.
simply brilliant. someone sent me an email the other day that exclaimed how the perfect, loving, all knowing and all powerful god created a wheat plant – how symmetrical the plant was, the beauty of its design, number of seeds etc. I then replied with the video of the baby born without a face. They replied that they would pray for the baby.
I know, right?
I love when people wax poetic about the perfection of human bodies in special and creation in general. I then point out that an immune system which turns against the body for no particular reason isn’t quite what I consider perfection. Then they stare at me and shut up.
Many christians have never been challenged like this. It’s like incest – they mate with their own kind, so to speak. They have only christian books, friends, influences. So when we ask a question like this, it’s possible they have actually never thought of it before.
Wow, they will pray for the baby. And that will do…what, exactly? And how does it answer the question you asked??? Usually “I’ll pray for you” is what they say when they are in a corner and have no answer.
Presumably? God already knows what he made a baby with no face, why do they have to tell him about it? If he’s making wheat all perfect and messes up when he creates a baby, you would think he has done all he can or, if he’s god, he knows what he’s supposed to do for the child and the parents, and will go ahead and do it without having to be specifically asked. I don’t understand how this is supposed to work, why people think they even have to pray for other people. If god knows everything, and is perfect, why is he on the request line for things he already knows he did that aren’t perfect? And if he’s not going to fix something, we’re supposed to be satisfied that he had a good “reason” for it. Couple drinks at a long lunch meeting, and this is what we get.
Dear god, please, I humbly ask you to consider reversing your decision to please me, to undo something perfect you’ve created so that it is actually what I would consider perfect. I know you know what you’re doing, you’re an expert at this, and I’m not, but I have some notes for you. I told my friend I was personal friends with you, and that I would ask. For some reason, I thought this would cheer him up. But I can’t fix this thing, I need you to do me a favor. You’re so great and wise, but here, you kind of screwed up on this one. I’m not mad, god. Well, a little. I’m just disappointed sometimes. I know you’ve kind of got your hands full with the whole entire world all at once, so I know, you just don’t always have that focus on me that I was expecting. You have to spread it out, and sometimes you mix things up – you are so busy, and you’ve never had a vacation. I know how that would impact my work. That’s a lot of responsibility. It happens. But you’re god, so I know you can put things the way they’re supposed to be. For me. And my friend. I kind of sort of promised there might be something you could do for him, and that I’d ask you personally. Thanks be to you. Talk to you again soon. Bye Lord.
Fuckin’ people suck…