Kid arrested for not standing for pledge...

[Brian37]

Blunt yes, nasty no. Truthful by every stretch.

Maybe you missed the part of the book where he made it clear, if invited to holy places, and he accepted he'd follow the customs in person.

The entire book was not anti human rights, but saying that religion does cause more divisions in humanity than it claims to solve.

I look at Hitchens as merely a blunt version of Sagan.

I said nasty and I meant nasty,

Imo Hitchens was a bigot. He made claims about an entire group of people. viz Muslims. I think that's the very definition of bigotry,. 

Obviously, his and my life experiences were different. I lived in a Muslim country,(Malaysia) with many Muslim friends.I never saw anything approaching the kind of  extreme behaviour he mentions. YES such behaviour could at times be seen in KL, which has religious police.AND a Muslim apostate will be put in prison for 2 years.  That does not represent ALL Malay Muslims, let alone all Muslims everywhere..

The people I knew were not even all that devout; no praying 5 times a day, not always even going to mosque on Friday ,,women did not wear head coverings.


 I think the linked article quoted below is worth reading-

While a scientist like Richard Dawkins might be forgiven for not having his philosophic/aesthetic house in order, no such tolerance should be allowed for his notorious comrade-in-arms Christopher Hitchens. In spite of the fact that Hitchens regularly invokes the authority of empiricism and reason—he condemns anything that “contradicts science or outrages reason,” and he concedes something that no poet would: that “proteins and acids ... constitute our nature”—he was not a scientist but a literary critic, a journalist, and a public intellectual. So, you would think that the perspective of the arts, literature, and philosophy would find a prominent place in his thought. But that is not the case. He proposes to clear away religion in the name of science and reason. Literature’s function in this brave new world is to depose the Bible and provide an opportunity to study the “eternal ethical questions.”

Hitchens’s "God Is Not Great" is an intellectually shameful book. To be intellectually shameful is to be dishonest, to tell less than you know, or ought to know, and to shape what you present in a way that misrepresents the real state of affairs. In this sense, and in Hitchens’s own term, his book lacks “decency.” (You may think that I lack decency for attacking a man so recently deceased, but I do no more than what Hitchens himself did. Speaking of Jerry Falwell, Hitchens pointedly refuses a “compassionate word” for this “departed fraud.”)


https://www.salon.com/2013/06/23/christo...no_favors/

So if your god asked you to murder your own son you'd do it?

Is that your definition of "decent"?

Sorry, but when he criticized the Abraham/Issac story he was right. Just like if someone asked me to murder my mother, my response would be "No and fuck you".

Hitchens was blunt and blasphemous and offensive. I agree with that. But he also said, "I hope I have never unintentionally offended anyone."

Bad claims are not always debunked through Mr Rogers debate.

---

And what part of a military service didn't you you understand, flyboy? It comes with the job. And feel sorry for your great indoctrination. And respect, you should know that respect is earned, not a given. Too bad you don't undertand that. the kid wasn't in the armed forces, so fuck of with your wings.

I had teachers that earned that, and I would comply. Others, more authoritarian, did not. Your silly nationalistic rethoric doesn't fly here.

Perhaps one day you will understand that, but, I fear your pride is damaging your thoughts. Read this carefully again, Respect is earned, not a given. I guess if a teacher told you to bow down and drop your pants, you would be running for a table and put a bamboo on your mouth just to to not bite your tongue.

WTF?  He was only told to stand up. I've told you a couple of times now that no one makes anyone say the pledge.

If you lived in North Korea or in WW2 Germany, you'd understand how fucking stupid this sounds.

The entire point of the west, isn't to force anyone to blindly kiss your ass.

It is still a form of setting up social pecking orders.

"I didn't say the black person couldn't sit on the bus, but they do have to ride in the back of the bus."

Even if the kid stands, but doesn't have to repeat the words, others, including the teacher sees it and social pressure to conform would still be a mental form of forcing conformity on the child.

And according to the article I'd argue, even if he had stood, she still would have gotten angry for him not reciting it according to her reaction afterwords. 

Again, it isn't about respect one bit. It is about not using government to indoctrinate anyone.