![]() |
By Steven Leser (about the author) Page 2 of 2 page(s)
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 10:36:32 -0700 (PDT) Tom Paine <tompaine1917@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: "Steven Leser" <sleser001@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Christopher Hitchens -- Shill, Flack, Mouthpiece, and Hack for the Worst Theocratic Political Regime in U.S. History, the Theocratic Imperialist Cheney-Bush Regime
To: "Tom Paine" <tompaine1917@yahoo.com>, info@ffrf.org
CC:
In addition to what Alan wrote, I would also point anyone wanting to decide whether someone like Hitchens should speak alone to FFRF to Hitchen's polemics both against Clinton in the Lewinsky scandal, and more recently his rants against the study in the Lancet http://www.slate.com/id/2151607/?nav=tap3 for the amount of civilian deaths in Iraq.
In both of these situations, Hitchens played on appeals to emotion rather than rational and/or scientific principles. To my way of thinking the atheist and FFRF organizations among other similar groups and movements are based on rationalism and scientific principles. Like many studies listed in the Lancet, the study that estimates the amount of deaths in Iraq from the war to date is based on the best peer reviewed scientific and statistical analysis available. Hitchens doesn't even try to provide better science to refute it. He falls back on tried and true red-baiting accusing the editor of the Lancet of being "a full-throated speaker at rallies of the Islamist-Leftist alliance that makes up the British Stop the War Coalition". Nevermind that the editor had nothing to do with the study. He did not commission it. He was not part of the peer-review process for it or anything of the sort.
The Lancet is arguably one of the most respected periodicals in the medical community. It is one of the preferred places for doctors and other medical researchers to publish groundbreaking treatment discoveries. Hitchens treats it as if it is an adjunct to 1970's era Pravda for no other reason than a peer reviewed study therein contradicts his politics. Any organization that is on the vanguard of rational thought should think long and hard about giving someone like that a platform all to himself.
Steve Leser
Friday
July 27, 2007
Dear Freedom from Religion Foundation:
I'm a member of the FFRF, the Atheist Alliance, and an associate member of the Council for Secular Humanism.
I have already lobbied Ms. Margaret Downey of the Atheist Alliance on this issue, and I'm lobbying you, now.
I will make the same suggestion to you that I made to her about the upcoming Atheist Alliance convention. This time, I make it about the upcoming FFRF convention.
If you are going to have the shill, flack, mouthpiece for the worst theocratic political regime in American history, the Cheney-Bush regime, Christopher Hitchens, speaking, the least you could do is have a prominent public atheist such as Tariq Ali or Gore Vidal, both of whom are anti-imperialists and strong opponents of the Cheney-Bush regime's imperialist invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, speak to counter the lies of Hitchens when he's questioned about the Cheney-Bush policies, and his flacking, lying, mouthpiecing, and shilling for the Cheney-Bush gangsters.
I was happy the FFRF sued the Cheney-Bush thugs, and unhappy the FFRF lost its lawsuit over religion-government separation.
I like Hitchens' book, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything.
But Hitchens is, to me, one of the most reprehensible types of people, for he has given an "atheist" cover to the Cheney-Bush policies. His raving idiocies about his invented phrase, Islamo-fascism, are designed to whitewash an imperialist system that has done more to reinforce the flow of Near Easterners into the ranks of Islamic extremism than anything else.
.
.
.
1 | 2
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
View Authors' Articles |
| 4 comments |
Want to post your own comment on this Article?
|
||||
Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |