(June 11, 2015 at 10:34 am)abaris Wrote: May I just note that it's quite asinine to introduce god and Hitchens into this discussion. Even more so since it rather makes the case for Napoleon, who was less religious than the ones fighting him. Also the liberating Europe from a dictator is bullshit. These were absolute rulers, who were worried about their own hides, not liberators. And in the case of England, which was a bit more liberal than the others, it was about trade routes and global interests.
Since when does the word "atheist" constitute a loyalty oath? I could give one shit less if Napoleon was not religious. You create an office that has no challenge to it by the consent of the governed, that makes you a dictator.
I find it absurd to revolt against kings who are unmovable only to replace that with something else unmovable, it is simply shifting one monopoly for another. A dictatorship is a monopoly of power, no different than a king is a dictator.
Hitchens made his living and did quite well because of our private sector as an author. He railed against both religious fascist states and the likes of Un. I think he is quite relevant to this discussion because he is an example of the ability to criticize religion and even state power. Fascism, which is what dictators value, will only at best, allow you to speak until you challenge their power.
I am under no obligation to value the likes of Napoleon. You are barking up the wrong tree to expect this atheist to value someone who does not need my consent to rule over me. Dictators do not need consent to rule.
