Christopher Hitchens in Conversation: The Only Subject is Love

Writer Christopher Hitchens and Dr. Laurie Patton, Emory Professor of early Indian religions, discuss freedom of expression and Hitchen's friendship with Salman Rushdie. Themes of love and hate weave through stories of Rushdie's time under the fatwa, self-censorship, blasphemy, and writing by committee.

Christopher Hitchens participated in 'The Only Subject is Love' Symposium in honor of the opening of his friend Salman Rushdie's archive at Emory University on February 26, 2010.
http://www.emory.edu/rushdie

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Emory Libraries
• Emory Library
• emory
• university
• college
• symposium
• hitchens
• christopher hitchens
• salman
• rushdie
• laurie patton
• blasphemous
• fatwa
• fatwah
• self
• censorship
• writing
• writer
• journalism
• free speech
• freedom
• of
• expression
• Orwell
• Jefferson
• author
• god
• religion
• zealot
• Dulce et Decorum Est
• Wilfred Owen

[SkyFortStudios]

great interview but her constant "mmhm, yeah" in the background eventually drove me fucking NUTS.

[Murphocracy]

Hitchens was refreshing to listen to in non-combative mode... even though I love him combative.

What a huge loss.

[SheStillRuns]

why is hitchens so cute? <3 

[dhx84]

@poprockssuck87

Nope. I'm fucking done with you. Read yourself critically. I'm not even going to touch your bullshit until you can accurately represent what other people SAY they believe. At the minimum, you should infer it accurately.

[poprockssuck87]

@dhx84 Look at your responses. Being an atheist doesn't mean that your position on any relevant matter is the default. You've no reasoning for relativism but that people as a whole don't appear to have any agreement. And if all which existed were on the surface of things and true with the acceptance of a vague number of individuals to your standard of sufficient...

You don't live by moral relativism, yet you can't explain why? I give an answer. You resort to relativism so that you don't have to.

[dhx84]

@poprockssuck87

Nope. I'm done with you. You're basically saying that you're right because *YOU* say it ought to be evident to me and other Christians. Followed by a lot of stern finger wagging.

And no, not a single damn theist has ever come up with a satisfactory solution to theodicy.

[poprockssuck87]

@dhx84 I said that you're nothing talking, as you've yet to see that your objections are little more than an extension of the problem of evil that is at times specified toward Christians alone. Your argument is that with the truth known--in The Bible--that it should be apparent to all, and that Christians should better behave.

Look at your replies to me, how much you addressed of my last couple series of responses; that you're the only to whine that I'm avoiding doesn't mean you don't, yourself.

[poprockssuck87]

@dhx84 "beyond merely asserting that objective morality MUST be real because morality would be impossible otherwise."

You don't comprehend the significance of nor the requirements for saying something is morally wrong. If it's not objectively wrong--in any sense and from any origin, it's not wrong beyond suggestion. You've held relativism is true on nothing more than "self-evidence." Now you're supporting a possible moral objectivity without saying anything of how--more self-evidence I suppose.