More and more I get the impression that Hitchens' debating strategy is to make us despise him so much that we stop replying, leaving him the winner by default.

As usual, the venom is in the tail. "It is often said that resistance to jihadism only increases the recruitment to it." Not quite. The point that is often made is that offending moderate muslims increases the recruiting base for jihadists, whose big claim is after all that islam is under attack by outside forces. Resistance to jihadism is important, but an absolutely essential element of this is not to create the impression with "Mohammed Doe" that he is being attacked. And because sadly, a great mass of muslims is impoverished and poorly educated and easily roused to fury, this requires tact and consideration.

"Most important of all, what will be said and done by those of us who take no side in filthy religious wars?" Those of who? Certainly not Hitchens, who is a religious warrior par excellence, and who -- as I have pointed out in the past -- would be excellent material for a terrorist organization, if any boneheaded fanatics are required. Ole Hitch' may be an atheist, but he is an atheist of the kind who demonstrate that you don't actually have to believe in a god to fight a religious war: Fundamentally intolerant and deaf to any other view point.

"The enemies of intolerance cannot be tolerant, or neutral, without inviting their own suicide." I would assume that if one is an enemy of intolerance, tolerance would come natural -- and more than mere tolerance: Respect and understanding
Yes, the enemies of intolerance need to be the enemies of the intolerant, and act accordingly. But in doing so, if they want to achieve anything at all, they need to show scrupulous respect for the rights, interests and beliefs of others.

"And the advocates and apologists of bigotry and censorship and suicide-assassination cannot be permitted to take shelter any longer under the umbrella of a pluralism that they openly seek to destroy." It is not about anyone seeking or being granted shelter under "the umbrella of pluralism." If you seriously believe in a secular society, as I assume Hitchens does, then its most logical basis (the one we in the west advocate, anyway, and there is no reason to do otherwise) is a universal set of human rights, agreed upon by people, consenting and informing, without appeal to any divine origin. But the point about such rights is that to be valuable, and useful as a basis of society, they have to be all-inclusive. No exceptions to be made, however convenient.

Who has his intolerance killed? We tolerate religious nuts of all stripes, and will no doubt continue to do so until one group or another manages to bring about, "the end of the world" they all so pathologically crave to deliver them from infantile fear of responsibility for their own actions.

It is absolutely amazing how "REVEALED" religion just keeps terrorism alive on Mother Earth!!

Oh, please, "My God is better than your God" is oh so 5 minutes ago. Revealed religion is nothing more than a group with set ideologies and morals who want to control the whole world; basically telling you when to eat, sleep, and take a shit!!

I am a Deist(www.deism.com) We do not recognize revealed religion of any type! We DO BELIEVE IN A GOD, the One True Creator/God of nature and reason and that All has been already laid out.

Do you think mankind would "get a clue" when history continues to REPEAT itself?? The disasters, control, enslavement, famine, disease, etc... have been repeating itself from recorded history, with the 1st Century, B.C.

And look at the "God Fearing" people of faith, scared into submission by the evil that controls their faith. Let me put it another way, according to the Christian doctrine of Jesus Christ, from the King James Version of the Anglo-Saxon Bible, ALL MANKIND, yes this includes the self-righteous and people of faith, will have the "Mark of the Beast" or "and they will be deceived by Him." Just look in their Bible, in Revelations. It could be viewed as BUNK or can be made to APPEAR REAL.

Sounds to me like revealed religion is the "mark of the beast." However, I dont buy any of it being a Deist. Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Paine and others were Deists.

I believe on that note, that humans follow their fate by a series of "pathes" and at times we make the wrong turn and eventually we may get back on track. Yet, we still meet our FATE! People blame their God for the unfortunate events on Earth or see it as some type of punishment, but we citizens of this Planet are the only beings RESPONSIBLE FOR OUR ACTIONS.!

So, folks, enough of that revealed religious bunk and let's discuss what will occur on August 17th, 2007 at 12:01 a.m. which is far more important than whose God is better!!

On July 17, 2007, President Bush issued, as yet unnumbered, Executive Order, "Blocking Property of 'Certain Citizens' who threaten stabilization efforts in Iraq."

This order revises/enhances Sect. 806, provisions of the Patriot Act, by basically SILENCING ANYBODY from speaking out against the Presidents War Policies and Stabilization efferts in Iraq, and quite possibly ANY DISSENT by "WE THE PEOPLE."

Impossible, you may say! WRONG! The 25th Amendment basically grants the President(Executive Branch) unchecked powers over ALL 3 BRANCHES OF GOVT.! And if the Legislative branch does not over turn this vague/flawed Order with in the 30 day review period, then our right to DISSENT will be barred indefinitely.

How, you may question? H-E-L-L-O People, this is your Emergency Wake-up Call! After 9/11, a "State of Emergency" was declared which allows the President to invoke the 25th Amendment.(Google the Constitution). And, all these years later, that "State of Emergency" has NEVER BEEN RESCINDED!!!

So, after August 17th, the Executive Branch has delegated the Secty of the Treasury who concurs with the Defense Dept and with the help of the IRS, can deem you a threat now or preceived threat in the future, speaking out against Bush's War Policies and restabilization efforts by SIEZING YOUR ASS[ETS]! Or in laymen's terms, freezing those assets PERMANENTLY and WITHOUT RECOURSE!

Yes, the vague term, "Certain Citizens" can mean you, an organization, coproration, celebrities, Presidential Candidates, our Reps in Govt, etc.... because of Public and Private DISSENT, orally and in writing!!

MMMMM, ding, ding, ding, as the ALARM sounds for Constitution Protectors, hey Mr. President, that takes away my Constitutional Rights and Bill of Rights and VOIDS the Constitution INDEFINITELY!!!

And if you hire a lawyer to defend yourself, that lawyer could be targeted as well as any friends, family, and organizations that come to your defense, be cause they are enabling your DISSENT by helping you. Their assets get frozen indefinitely.

Now would be a great time for the whole country to watch or re-watch George Orwell's, "1984" and the Tom Cruise movie, "Minority Report." Then you will discover the truth behind this blatant power grab by the Executive Branch which dissolves the "Checks and Balances" required by the Constitution, or what is left of it since the original Patriot Act basically voids the Constitution.

Look back in history if you think I'm nuts. During WW I the govt threw U.S. Citizens in JAIL FOR DISSENTING AGAINST THE WAR!! Or in WW II, our govt again, threw U.S. Citzens of Japanese heritage into Interment Camps because they were deemed/preceived as a threat to National Security!!!

But they were Japanese you may say, but if they target "Certain Citizens" what's to stop them from going after other people because of their dissent and categorize them as "Certain Citizens?"

Like I said before, you would think we would learn from our History, and try not to repeat those mistakes and move forward. We are still a BARBARIC/UNCIVILIZED SOCIETY in this 21st Century!!

You can believe what you want to believe but READ the Executive Order and then get on the fax or phone, not email or mail, and demand your reps over turn this termination of our Rights!!

"THOSE WHO CAN GIVE UP ESSENTIAL LIBERTY TO OBTAIN A LITTLE TEMPORARY SAFETY DESERVE NEITHER LIBERTY OR SAFETY." Benjamin Franklin.

anyone who professes a religion, no matter how tolerant they are of atheists. I've long since stopped listening to him. He's a closet racist and openly anti-theist.

"I've long since stopped listening to him."

Um, apparently not.

Who has his intolerance killed?

I'd say that Hitchens' intolerance has contributed to the deaths of thousands in Iraq (to the extent that he bears any responsibility for promoting the war so vociferously).

I'm an atheist, but I'm not going to sit around pretending that if you banish all religion everything's going to get better. For one thing, I don't think you can ever successfully banish all religion. All you can do is promote reason and moderation over blindness and zealotry. Hitchens seems to be trying to play both sides against the middle: hitching his horse to the pro-war Christian evangelical bandwagon in hopes of wiping Islam off the face of the Earth with the idea that once that's done he'll find a sword that will allow him to cut down Christianity, too.

The only thing Hitchens is proving with his moronic "I'm not afraid to insult the Muslims" crusade is that an atheist can be just as stupid and reckless as any religious zealot, and just as willing to throw away other people's lives in the name of some magical future dawn when the evil forces of (false) religion have been banished from the Earth forever.

I don't subscribe to the anti-religion pro-atheist stance of Hitchens and the like (daniel dennet, etc), but I think they're an important group to have around, if you are a secularist, a humanist, or even a deist. I put myself somewhere between the last two of those, and while my views are much more nuanced, I am glad that someone is out there, pushing the radical edge of the atheist arguement.

My reasoning is that people like hitchens occupy the attention and ire of more traditional religious types and give more contemplative folks who may or may not believe in god some intellectual breathing space. It might be somewhat distasteful, but I'm glad that someone's out there singing the praises of atheism, so I can let that part of my belief rest and get on with more meaningful discussion.

Everyone should have the right to believe what they wish, as long as it doesn't directly harm others physically. No one should have the right to force or coerce others to conform or change their beliefs. These should be recognized as basic human rights world wide, or at least a worthy goal to attain. Unfortunately, this will be very unlikely to happen, since religion can be a very powerful tool used to control people for secular goals, and is very easy to use to manipulate large groups. Most larger belief system groups are guilty of using religion as a tool for secular power. Evan handed enforcement of all laws guaranteeing freedoms must be the goal, no matter who it offends, whether it be Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Scientologists, Pagans, etc. Otherwise were are held hostage by any fanatical group that doesn't like our own beliefs, no matter which ones they are.

Religion does a lot more harm than good and all the good that comes from it can come from being secular.

You stopped believing in Santa Claus (well I hope so) time to move on and accept that believing in myths is for fools.

If you really believe your theory of Hitchens' insane support of the Iraq war, you are simpler than you sound. It has ZERO to do with his distaste for the religious. There is nothing Religion can give you that you cannot get without it.

"How, you may question? H-E-L-L-O People, this is your Emergency Wake-up Call! After 9/11, a "State of Emergency" was declared which allows the President to invoke the 25th Amendment.(Google the Constitution). And, all these years later, that "State of Emergency" has NEVER BEEN RESCINDED!!!"

This part of your rant was just bizarre enough to prompt me to reply.

Please direct me to the part of the 25th Amendment that was "invoked" by the president as part of a "state of emergency" after 9/11.

Thanks

You'd think the "jihadists" had state power, an army, a navy, and marines, not to mention an air force.

Unlike the "communists", they have none of these. They are rather more like the Southern Evangelicals, and not nearly tha tpowerful, even.

a soup kitchen. Funny, whenever I work in a homeless shelter or soup kitchen, I've never met an atheist in there. By the way, the Iraq war was theoretically fought for democracy, I assume you'll be condemning that soon too as causing harm. Man uses religion for his own purposes. It's not religions fault that men are asses.

another person's opinion of value. This is another typical anti-religious rant by Hitchensen. Some crap different religion.

A week after 9-11, my turban wearing uncle had a gun thrust to his forehead on the streets of Chicago. Why should we be tolerant of religion? Because the danger that "islamist fantics" bring in third-world Islamic countres are similarly brought here by ignorant and xenohphibic Americans. Despite what is happening in other countries, it is our responsibility to try to maintain a respectable standard of life for all our citizens- one that doesn't involve a fear of being blown up in the middle of the street simply for professing a faith. It is not out place to question someone else's faith and we should not try to breed hatred ( aka-Danish Cartoons) And Hitchensen should double check some facts about jihad/authority/Islamist tolerance in general before he ignorantly decides to condemn them.