Interesting article, but a point of order: Colson's dramatic conversion to Christianity took place after he left the White House, following these conversations. And, the mere fact that Colson HEARD Nixon's words does not de facto convict him (no pun intended) of agreeing with them, as the article implies. It's quite possible he did, but where is the evidence? There is likewise no exploration of Billy Graham's response to Nixon's comments on Jews; his remarks would have been recorded as well as Nixon's. Did he agree? Disagree? The article doesn't say. As is stands here, he's guilty merely for having heard. It's a dangerous and ultimately untenable position to lob accusations at hearers instead of speakers - it eliminates any reasoned argument (although, one might wish this to apply to eavesdroppers). Ultimately, this article implies that being religious/Christian and being cruel or biased are one and the same, no evidence required. Hitchens is well known for his strenuous dislike of all religions; he seems to get his personal feelings and the historic record a bit confused here. Could it be bias?

*** Did he agree? Disagree? The article doesn't say. ***


As is clearly stated in the article, Graham, execrable toady that he was and is, agreed with everything Nixon had to say.

<link>

Hitchens isn't "convicting" these religious people of anything. He's simply pointing out that being religious exempts you from nothing.