Posted: Dec 21, 2011 12:28 am
SafeAsMilk wrote:
Now, address the point of the question: are Jews the ONLY people who were persecuted by the Nazi's?
Yeah but that wasn't actually "the point", was it? "The point", in case you missed it, and what a shame Agi Hammerthief lost all his typing because it might have answered it, was that the Holocaust was about religion. Of course, Agi's question, "Since when was the holocaust about religion?" was indeed only a question. But - sorry to labour the point - "the point" was, he asked it, and the fact Agi even asked it shows a level of detachment from the reality of the holocaust that is not far removed from the kind of detachment Hitchens was frequently guilty of.
So you choose to portray me as saying the holocaust was not also about racism, homophobia, anti-semitism, anti-communism, anti-anything else? In Agi's words, give us a break. Bit of a tangent that, and not what I said.
Please believe me, it's fine if Hitchens isn't there to say what I want him to say, it's not as if it's possible for him to do that now anyway, is it? And really, there's no need to resort to expletives. I quite clearly have "the foggiest f****** clue what he's said," as you so delicately put it, because his laborious Jefferson letter was quoted in full above. Dear oh dear. I really do prefer to rely on rational argument rather than sexual abuse to get my point across. Surely we can have a discussion on that basis, please?
And why so angry? I was merely making the point that for Hitchens, the point of the letter was to demonstrate that secularism benefits society and warring religions by keeping them apart. That is not a statement in principle of support for religious freedom; it is support of religious freedom which is conditional on the sanctification of secularism - I wouldn't use the word sanctification usually but Hitchens was clearly not above similar pomposities so why not?
To argue that secularism must at all costs remain central to national governance in order to keep religions in conflict apart from one another (and indeed away from harming society itself) is not the same as arguing for the principle of religious freedom in its own right. This is a (not very) subtle but important difference which of course will be lost in the almost inevitable "<snip>" of every rational argument that appears in this thread in favour of abusive language. Hitchens seems to think secularism is the only thing that guarantees religious freedom - that's the core point of his letter - but it's not true anyway. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights guarantees religious freedom, and that was signed by more theocratic governments (like the UK) than you'd care to mention. The UK has enshrined human rights in its law, and the UK is hardly a secular state.
Hitchens really hasn't demonstrated his point. Now, in your responses to me, please don't swear.