Comments

1. noga

   Tuesday 18 December 2007 at 14:31

   “To put this simply enough, if I turn to a JDL fanatic and tell him that I will not cast my vote for him, and he responds by saying that I am deciding my vote on the unfair basis that he is a Jew, he is welcome to the meager consolation that this may afford him, but he is legally entitled—as am I—to fight another day.”

   I am puzzled as to why, when religious or political fanaticism is the subject, often the author will choose, of all the available assortment of “religiously inclined windbags”, to illustrate his point by Jewish example.

   A while ago, AC Grayling wrote about the activism taken up by conservative religious groups in the matter of Gay rights, in Britain:

   “That is exactly what we would say if they refused to serve black people, women, or Jews. The discrimination is the same, the unacceptability of discrimination is the same, the contempt one feels for them is the same.

   And on the subject of Jews: what a disgrace that the stone-agers outside parliament tonight will include a Jewish group. If anyone should be against discrimination of any kind, it is a Jew. Alongside the Jews murdered in Auschwitz were homosexuals, wearing a pink patch where the Jews wore a Star of David. The despairing implication of the fact that Jews are joining Christian and Muslims - the usual standard bearers of intolerance and reaction - in this campaign is that too many people learn too little, never connect the dots, and repeat the ghastly errors of the past, when under the thought-inhibiting influence of such toxins as religious belief.”

   If we lived in 70 AD and were the Roman empire, maybe Jewish religious fanaticism might have been the primary most obvious concern. But today? Surely Hitchens, when speaking of constitutional and political matters, could have alighted upon a more fitting and timely example to illustrate his valid point? Why always make an example of Jewish idiocy when so many other idiocies are avaliable?

   Am I wrong in noticing it? Should I be celebrating the underlying flattering suggestion that being Jewish is a kind of exclusive saintliness?

2. noga

   Tuesday 18 December 2007 at 17:33

   Please someone delete one of my comments.

3. Terry Glavin

   Tuesday 18 December 2007 at 17:58

   I don’t think you’re wrong in noticing it - the assumption of a special duty to saintliness on the part of Jews, if I’ve got your point right - although I do think you’re mistaken in noticing it in the Hitchens essay here, and certainly would be mistaken in attributing this habit to Hitchens generally. After all, the point he was making in reference to the JDL was the same point he was making about hypothetical candidates who follow Jim Jones, L. Ron Hubbard, Joseph Smith, the pope, and so on.

   Grayling was implying an exceptional duty on the part of Jews to demonstrate solidarity with the oppressed - which Jews have been known to quite reasonably proclaim on account of the Jews’ exceptionally intimate familiarity with the suffering of oppression. Maybe Grayling was being a bit tedious about it, but that’s all that’s going on there, isn’t it?

4. hakmao

   Tuesday 18 December 2007 at 18:17

   Please someone delete one of my comments.

   Done. Don’t know why Akismet (spam filter) has taken exception to you - perhaps try a bogus email address, as Akismet might think it’s a bit spammy…

5. Simon B

   Tuesday 18 December 2007 at 18:26

   Have you seen this?

   “Pope Benedict XVI has launched a surprise attack on climate change
   prophets of doom, warning them that any solutions to global warming must
   be based on firm evidence and not on dubious ideology.”

   http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=501316&in_page_id=1811&ito=1490

6. hakmao

   Tuesday 18 December 2007 at 19:37

   The Catholic church should stick to the things they know about … like shagging children.

7. unaha-closp

   Tuesday 18 December 2007 at 20:16

   I am puzzled as to why, when religious or political fanaticism is the subject, often the author will choose, of all the available assortment of “religiously inclined windbags”, to illustrate his point by Jewish example.

   It is the easiest and shortest word to spell.

8. Simon B

   Tuesday 18 December 2007 at 21:37

   Hak - it was the bit about wanting ‘firm evidence’ not ‘dubious ideology’ that made me laugh.
   He’s the bloody pope!

9. hakmao

   Tuesday 18 December 2007 at 22:04

   Aye, I took that as read.

10. Eric

    Tuesday 18 December 2007 at 23:22

    See here for low down on the Daily Mail article:

    http://www.badscience.net/?p=599

11. Terry Glavin

    Wednesday 19 December 2007 at 0:31

    It would appear that Auld Red Socks said nothing particularly outrageous or even interesting, and this is good. But it would be even better if everyone stopped paying attention to popes altogether. Catholics included. Er, especially.

12. Will

    Wednesday 19 December 2007 at 0:36

    

13. Scoop Shachtman

    Wednesday 19 December 2007 at 0:45

    

14. dirigible

    Wednesday 19 December 2007 at 12:35

    Jesus saves. Satan spends.

    God watches you even when you are going to the toilet. I was taught this at school as a child. He’s a right old perv that Jehova.