1. Comment #37402 by Robert Maynard on May 4, 2007 at 11:40 am

Definitely a better interview than the Daily Show one.

"Religion ends and philosophy begins, just as alchemy ends and chemistry begins and astrology ends, and astronomy begins."

Bickety-bam, what a great quote.

Other Comments by Robert Maynard

2. Comment #37403 by Hylo on May 4, 2007 at 11:42 am

Brilliant! How refreshing to see a news anchor in the US, or anywhere, not only giving such a glowing endorsement of such a book book but actually conversing with his guest in such a way as to allow him to give viewers a good idea of what is to be found within it.

I especially loved his quote from the beginning: "Religion ends and philosophy begins, just as alchemy ends and chemistry begins and astrology ends and astronomy begins."

Other Comments by Hylo

3. Comment #37404 by phil rimmer on May 4, 2007 at 11:46 am

Wow, an intelligent responce from the mainstream American media. Fair brought a tear to me eye.

Lou Dobbs? Who he? Is this response unexpected? I'd be grateful if someone from the US could explain to an ignorant limey.

Other Comments by phil rimmer

4. Comment #37408 by Harlon57 on May 4, 2007 at 12:01 pm

Phil Rimmer

Lou Dobbs was host of a financial show, MoneyLine for 20 years.

In the past few years he has made a name for himself by charting the supposed "attack on the middle-class", and more recently for fighting against "illegal immigration".

Other Comments by Harlon57

5. Comment #37409 by room101 on May 4, 2007 at 12:02 pm

phil:

Lou Dobb's response didn't surprise me at all. He definitely seems to be left of center regarding his views, and a champion for the masses (populist). He has come down hard on many of Bush's politics claiming that they're, among other things, "out of touch with working class Americans".

Christopher Hitchen's book is getting a lot of press and it's good to see. Now, I'd like to see him appear on Fox (against the right wingers) and have a go with O'Reilly, Hannity, et al. I think he would hold up well as he is eloquent and doesn't appear to be easily bullied.

Other Comments by room101

6. Comment #37410 by cassdenata on May 4, 2007 at 12:03 pm

Oh man, what a great interview. For those that aren't Americans, Lou Dobbs is a mainstream news anchor who has a PrimeTime nightly show, this is no small bag. I think Lou Dobbs had a large hand in creating the CNN News Network. Lou Dobbs is generally quite rational, mostly liberal and a bit dull, so he is not as popular as O'Reilly and the like. Plus, he is absolutely OBSESSED with illegal immigration, discussing it on his show every night. His position on illegal immigration is more in line with the right wing, in that he is very anti-immigration.

Other Comments by cassdenata

7. Comment #37411 by Fedler on May 4, 2007 at 12:04 pm

phil rimmer-

I don't know much about Dobbs, but what little I have seen from him he appears to be a pretty common-sense, equal opportunity moderator. He doesn't discriminate one way or the other. If your ideas are stupid and/or brilliant - no matter who you are - he'll say so. At least that's the first impression I get from him.

Other Comments by Fedler

8. Comment #37412 by tomjlawson on May 4, 2007 at 12:06 pm

phil rimmer says:

Wow, an intelligent responce from the mainstream American media. Fair brought a tear to me eye.

Lou Dobbs? Who he? Is this response unexpected? I'd be grateful if someone from the US could explain to an ignorant limey.

Dobbs loves the founding fathers and every document they wrote. He has taken a bit of flack for being so adamantly opposed to illegal aliens that are in the States - about 12 million foreigners live there illegally, mostly Mexicans. He is NOT anti-immigration, he is for LEGAL immigration. This misconception leads people to think he's racist and closed-minded when in actuality he just wants people to respect the laws that the founding fathers laid down for his country. He knows that the problem with religion is the same problem Americans have with patriotism, and that is the plain fact that moderately religious people have not read the bible and your average patriots have not read the constitution...

Other Comments by tomjlawson

9. Comment #37413 by kirkmc on May 4, 2007 at 12:07 pm

At least this time he's sober...

Other Comments by kirkmc

10. Comment #37415 by denoir on May 4, 2007 at 12:11 pm

There are two things that slightly irritate me with Hitchens' standard speech. The first thing is the claim that the US is the only country that has separation of church and state in the constitution - not true by a long shot. The US was the first one to introduce it (great accomplishment!), and fortunately many other countries followed the example.

The second thing (he didn't mention it in this speech) is his "B:s" - places that begin with a "B" and where religion has caused violence and destruction. This applies to TGD as well by the way. Both Hitchens and Dawkins mention Bosnia and say that the real conflict was between religious factions (Orthodox Christians vs Muslims vs Catholics).

As someone who has served as a peace keeper in both Bosnia and Kosovo, I can tell you that it isn't true at all. The division was not by religion, but by nationality/ethnic groups. It's just as bad. The single largest group in the religious arena in former Yugoslavia were actually atheists (about 50% of the populations on average).

The nationalism/religion connection was actually far weaker than one would have expected. In that particular region, nationality was always far more important than religion. The religion used to be one of a number of cultural in-group/out-group markers but hardly the most important one. And after 50 years in communist Yugoslavia, that particular marker had been wiped out to a large extent. Language, history and culture had not.


I think that there are enough examples of the damage that religion really does, without having to make up or misinterpret new ones. It undermines the credibility of the overall argument. When I read TGD and got to the section where it was claimed that "Croat" was an euphemism for "Catholic" and "Serb" a euphemism for "Orthodox Christian", the credibility of the book dropped significantly from my point of view. This was something I actually knew was wrong. How could I trust the author on the stuff I didn't know about - like Ireland? And then when I've gotten over it Hitchens goes around parroting the same incorrect claim.

Sorry for the slide off topic, but that has been annoying me for a while.

Other Comments by denoir

11. Comment #37419 by CruciFiction on May 4, 2007 at 12:16 pm

"Thanks to Ranjani for the link."

HUH?!

Yeah, never mind that it was I who recorded and then uploaded this video to YouTube yesterday (5/3) and then emailed you the link within the hour of broadcast. Richarddawkins' staff instead chose to wait nearly a day later for onegoodmove to first steal the video from me, give them the credit, and then even upload it to their own YouTube account. No permission requested or even a polite notification. I know it's mine because the interview begins late, at the exact same point I started.

Okay, so no integrity to be found here. Thanks for nothing. That's the last time I submit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZ_l3Utr670

Other Comments by CruciFiction

12. Comment #37422 by Hylo on May 4, 2007 at 12:20 pm

Thanks denoir for that explanation. I can tell you being Irish (from the Republic, not Nothern Ireland) that Richards writings on NI were spot on.

Other Comments by Hylo

13. Comment #37425 by BaronOchs on May 4, 2007 at 12:24 pm

CruciFiction you shall receive your reward in heaven.

...oh crap

Other Comments by BaronOchs

14. Comment #37427 by Liveliest Crib on May 4, 2007 at 12:27 pm

8. Comment #37412 by tomjlawson on May 4, 2007 at 12:06 pm

Dobbs loves the founding fathers and every document they wrote. He has taken a bit of flack for being so adamantly opposed to illegal aliens that are in the States - about 12 million foreigners live there illegally, mostly Mexicans. He is NOT anti-immigration, he is for LEGAL immigration. This misconception leads people to think he's racist and closed-minded when in actuality he just wants people to respect the laws that the founding fathers laid down for his country.

True enough, but a couple things: (1) I'm not sure it's right to say that the immigration laws we have now are the laws the founders established (though that's an insignificant quibble; and (2) Dobbs is also on record saying that once immigrants do arrive here legally, they should not celebrate the culture of their origin. We as Americans, he contends, should only be celebrating our unity as Americans, and not pay any public homage to our diversity.

Of course, while I disagree with him on this point, it doesn't detract from others of his opinions which are quite sensible. Indeed, that he would conduct a good interview with Hitchens is not really a surprise (to continue the answer to non-Americans unfamiliar with him).

What is a delightful surprise is how quickly the American media has picked up on the atheist authors, and given them less-than-entirely-hostile publicity. I always agreed with Dawkins that the number of us non-believers in the U.S. was greater than most people think. Perhaps it's even greater than I thought. :)

Other Comments by Liveliest Crib

15. Comment #37429 by admin on May 4, 2007 at 12:28 pm

CruciFiction,

I've updated the info, and moved the link to your youtube video. I didn't receive a notice from you, in the future please email links to design@richarddawkins.net. Thanks.

Josh

Other Comments by admin

16. Comment #37430 by Liveliest Crib on May 4, 2007 at 12:30 pm

CruciFiction,

Yikes. Maybe something just got lost in an e-mail shuffle. I imagine they're bombarded with submissions by the minute, many of them duplicate or triplicate of others.

Other Comments by Liveliest Crib

17. Comment #37433 by phil rimmer on May 4, 2007 at 12:42 pm

Thanks for the Dobbs background info everyone.

denoir

Thanks, important post. I think its crucial we get this stuff right, and this is the ideal forum to spread real information. We must never have Dogma of our own. Now, how can we be sure to get it to RD and CH?

Other Comments by phil rimmer

18. Comment #37434 by tomjlawson on May 4, 2007 at 12:50 pm

Liveliest Crib says:

True enough, but a couple things: (1) I'm not sure it's right to say that the immigration laws we have now are the laws the founders established (though that's an insignificant quibble; and (2) Dobbs is also on record saying that once immigrants do arrive here legally, they should not celebrate the culture of their origin. We as Americans, he contends, should only be celebrating our unity as Americans, and not pay any public homage to our diversity.

Yeah, Dobbs is kind of stuck in the 18th century in his "melting pot" mentality. (The founding fathers were pretty pissed at Britain and all new arrivals had to renounce their British citizenship.) There is still an old U.S. law that says all immigrants need to renounce their former citizenships and become true Americans, which is why there is a rumour that dual-citizenship is illegal for Americans. I live in Canada now - a proud "tossed salad" rather than a "melting pot" - and the U.S. embassy here says that if I want to be a Canadian citizen I have to give up my U.S. citizenship. It's that black-or-white mentality of "either you are or you're not." This is why Arnold Schwarzenegger cannot run for the presidency. Arnold could give the finger to Austria and the States still would not trust his loyalty to them. Old laws die hard in the Excited States of America...

Other Comments by tomjlawson

19. Comment #37436 by Julie Gomoll on May 4, 2007 at 12:57 pm

I've seen several posts now calling Lou Dobbs liberal. Traditionally, he's been right of center. He was a Bush supporter in the early days. I like him though - he's never toed the party line. An earlier big cause for him was outsourcing - he's very anti globalization. He's fiscally conservative, for sure. But these last few years he's become more and more independent. But this interview - which was fabulous - surprised me. I wouldn't have though he'd be so supportive and encouraging of Hitchins.

Way to go, Lou!

Other Comments by Julie Gomoll

20. Comment #37442 by chbg21808 on May 4, 2007 at 1:10 pm

I love Christopher Hitchens, his depth of knowledge always astounds me and like Richard Dawkins, he never pulls any punches.

It's a shame Hitchens wasn't at the Beyond Belief conference that Dawkins and Harris attended.

Never heard of Lou Dobbs before... very impressed. If only all journalists had the same integrity. You could see that they had genuine respect for each other, which is nice to see.

Other Comments by chbg21808

21. Comment #37443 by davyB on May 4, 2007 at 1:15 pm

To leave comments and a rating for this interview on YouTube, click through here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZ_l3Utr670

Other Comments by davyB

22. Comment #37452 by FVThinker on May 4, 2007 at 1:44 pm

As an American, I am not sure how truly breathtaking this interview was for me. I know of no other maintream television anchor to unambiguously endorse an atheistic tome. I was genuinely moved. Thank you Lou!

Other Comments by FVThinker

23. Comment #37453 by CruciFiction on May 4, 2007 at 1:48 pm

"I've updated the info, and moved the link to your youtube video. I didn't receive a notice from you, in the future please email links to design@richarddawkins.net. Thanks." ~ Josh
=====

Thank you, Josh. That is much appreciated.

I emailed my YouTube link on yesterday to "contact@richarddawkins.net", just as I had recently done with my Bill Maher on Scarborough Country capture. As that was promptly posted, I naturally assumed it was the appropriate address for this submittal as well. I've made a note of the preferred address you've supplied here.

Though it's true anyone may capture the same television segments for themselves and post them simultaneously, I have a genuine dislike for those who instead resort to outright stealing videos (as 'onegoodmove' has done here) from others who make the effort and expend the energy to share them with others.

Thanks,
Jack

Other Comments by CruciFiction

24. Comment #37457 by Patchell on May 4, 2007 at 1:51 pm

Dobbs seems to be an old school conservative republican, like the ones before Ronald Regan and the neo-cons hijacked the party.

I was impressed when Dobbs was on Bill Maher last year and made more sense then any other person on the show. Bravo Lou!!

Other Comments by Patchell

25. Comment #37460 by mr harry on May 4, 2007 at 1:58 pm

Dobbs is a traditional, fiscal conservative, but socially liberal with a strong populist message. He criticizes both sides, and hates bush and the current administration, mostly for not dealing with the huge illegal immigration problem we have here. He is also very critical of the cronyism that seems to go on in the Bush Whitehouse.

I call his show "Mexican hour" because he covers illegal immigration about 80 percent of the time. He also spends a lot of time on globalization, china, and Middle-East trade policy.

Other Comments by mr harry

26. Comment #37463 by MIND_REBEL on May 4, 2007 at 2:01 pm

I'm 100% mexican, and think illegal immigration is a huge problem. Either make them citizens or send them home because it's not fair those who follow the law to reward those who break it.

Other Comments by MIND_REBEL

27. Comment #37465 by GoodbyeGodNZ on May 4, 2007 at 2:06 pm

CruciFiction - Sounds like you're a self centered little tosser who just flung his toys out of the cot. We're better off without attention seekers like you!

Great interview from both Dobbs & Hitchens. It's great to have another champion up at the front punching hard with Richard, Sam and so many others like Jonathan Miller.

Just who wouldn't die for the voices and styles of delivery of RD, SH & CH. They can all foot it in debate with the best on the planet!

Other Comments by GoodbyeGodNZ

28. Comment #37469 by CruciFiction on May 4, 2007 at 2:22 pm

GoodbyeGodNz,

Eat me!

Other Comments by CruciFiction

29. Comment #37470 by CruciFiction on May 4, 2007 at 2:23 pm

Hitchens is debating Al Sharpton on May 7. Should be a goody.

http://www.nypl.org/research/chss/pep/pepdesc.cfm?id=2677

Other Comments by CruciFiction

30. Comment #37473 by chbg21808 on May 4, 2007 at 2:42 pm

I really don't want to have a go at crucifiction too. But I think you did over react and am suprised you didn't even apologise to Josh. He after all, did explain the situation. At the end of the day, does it really matter who gets credit for the link? Getting the knowledge out there is all that really matters.

Other Comments by chbg21808

31. Comment #37477 by Tomcat on May 4, 2007 at 3:08 pm

Please help us Digg this!!

Other Comments by Tomcat

32. Comment #37479 by kkant on May 4, 2007 at 3:12 pm

room101 writes:
Now, I'd like to see him appear on Fox (against the right wingers) and have a go with O'Reilly, Hannity, et al. I think he would hold up well as he is eloquent and doesn't appear to be easily bullied.

As a matter of fact, he was on Fox. I was at the mechanic getting my car fixed, and the TV was showing Fox News. Imagine my surprise, when I caught the tail end of Hitchens on the TV. It was about 1:30 PM pacific time yesterday (May 3). I don't know who the interviewer was, I don't really know these Fox anchors by name. In what little I saw, treating him with that smug sardonic grin, as if to say "this guy is kind of a kook and we can pretty much ignore his outrageous statements, but we'll generously indulge him as we look down our noses". Of course, I only saw a total of 5 seconds of this interview, so I could be mistaken. If anyone has a link to this video clip online, would be cool to see.

This Lou Dobbs interview, on the other hand...great stuff!!

Other Comments by kkant

33. Comment #37484 by RickM on May 4, 2007 at 3:32 pm

I sent Dobbs a note of encouragement at:

http://www.cnn.com/feedback/forms/form5.html?76

Other Comments by RickM

34. Comment #37487 by RickM on May 4, 2007 at 3:37 pm

kkant,

LOL. Hitchens would beat Hannity to a pulp. I don't think Bill "I'm Catholic" O'Reilly has to balls to interview Hitchens.

Other Comments by RickM

35. Comment #37489 by phiwilli on May 4, 2007 at 3:39 pm

For those outside the U.S., Lou Dobbs is (as above posts have made pretty clear) hard to locate on the liberal/conservative spectrum. But he regularly treats interviewees courteously and with respect even when he disagrees with them (which is rather often), plus he usually asks some pretty good and relevant questions.

He's a refreshing exception to the typical bombast of U.S. TV pundits - but he does overdo his obsession with immigration issues.

Other Comments by phiwilli

36. Comment #37492 by Yorker on May 4, 2007 at 3:59 pm

20. Comment #37442 by chbg21808

I had that same thought about Hitchens a few days ago. Hopefully Prof. Dawkins has some influence with Roger Bingham and will ask him to invite Hitch to this November's BB conference. I think he'd be quite entertaining up against the Templeton types!

Other Comments by Yorker

37. Comment #37494 by MelM on May 4, 2007 at 4:08 pm

At the end, Dobbs says "...you call for ???? enlightenment..." I've tried several times and can't make out what was said. Anybody know what this is about?

Yes, a nice interview. Other spots that would help the cause:
>The C-Span early morning show. One-on-one for a long time and some viewer call-in questions.
>The Charlie Rose show on PBS. This could be a half hour or even a whole hour.
>The News Hour on PBS. He would get a nice long segment but the book would have to stir up a lot of dust first (I think).
>One of the late night comedy shows. (One had Julia Sweeny on last year.) There would be a few jokes but the basic tone would be serious and far far better than O'Reilly.
>Day time talk shows. I find these kind of dumb but they would most likely be better than O'Reilly.

One of the most difficult spots is a 5min debate on some news show; you get about 2.5min of talking time. I saw one guy do a pretty good job recently by using his time to say what he wanted to say and didn't "bite" on the crap his opponent was dumping.

Other Comments by MelM

38. Comment #37495 by chunkylimey on May 4, 2007 at 4:14 pm

I was suprised that Lou Dobbs was actually for once bearable for me. He is often reliant like other pundits (Bill O'Reilly etc) on xenophobia, jingoism and over simplification (especially on issues like immigration). Yet here he proved me utterly wrong about him and was considered and thoughtful.

As an Englishman who lived in America for a long time I have like Hitchens a much more developed "relationship" with the country and am glad that he expresses a connection between both nations in his thinking and writing. I don't always agree with him but he ideas are always worth considering.

Other Comments by chunkylimey

39. Comment #37498 by lpetrich on May 4, 2007 at 4:30 pm

CH's list of "virgin births" includes:

Jesus
Perseus
Buddha
Attis
Huitzilopochtili
Genghis Khan
Krishna
Horus
Mercury
Romulus


I have a lot of quarrels with that list. Some of its members do indeed qualify, like Romulus and Perseus, but others don't, like Krishna, whose mother had had 7 children before she had him.

However, Krishna is an avatar or incarnation of the god Vishnu, and the Buddha was a reincarnation of someone very enlightened.

And I think that CH mixes up the Buddha's birth with his soul entering his mother's womb. She had a dream that a white elephant had entered her side, and this was interpreted as her having become pregnant with the Buddha.

Divine impregnation is not very prominent in the Old Testament, if it is present at all. "Children" and "sons" and "daughters" are often used metaphorically there. But it is almost absurdly common in Greco-Roman mythology, where gods not only begot other gods, they also made lots of mortal women pregnant. And pregnant not only with several legendary heroes, but also with some real people, like Pythagoras, Plato, Alexander the Great, and Augustus Caesar.

So I think that it's a combination of pagan influence and of overly literal interpretation of "Son of God".

Other Comments by lpetrich

40. Comment #37499 by d4m14n on May 4, 2007 at 4:32 pm

Can someone please clear up the virgin birth of Krishna myth for me? Apparently there are at least 2 traditions. One states that Krishna was the 8th child of Devaki, the other apparently claims that she was a virgin. I see plenty of atheist sites mentioning the second account, but the only creditable accounts I can find are of the former, 8th child account.

Many thanks.

Other Comments by d4m14n

41. Comment #37500 by Robert Ashton on May 4, 2007 at 4:34 pm

I agree that this was much better than "The Daily Show" but as much because Hitchens wasn't required to be funny. His cheap shot (and I know he'll say it was not his intent) on that show that believers are rather like chimpanzees doesn't help the debate and is a problem with Dawkins and Dennett. However, his pride in becoming an American and the values that underpin the country (however much they may be under attack by fundamentalists) is a strength that can make him more credible in the U.S.

Other Comments by Robert Ashton

42. Comment #37501 by Steve Scott on May 4, 2007 at 4:34 pm

I have to say I was moved by Hitchins accepting the lapel pin from Dobbs. He seemed truly proud to be an American...and proud for all the right reasons.

I'm reading his book now. Fantastic. He cracks a bit on Dawkins and Dennett, but Hitchins calls it as he sees it.

Coming on the heels of Dawkins, Dennett, and Harris...this book is going to have one Hell of an impact. I don't discount the contributions of Victor Stenger and other authors...but these latter don't write quite as well as these four. Truly they're leading the secular charge. You can almost hear the trumpets.

Regards,

Steve

Other Comments by Steve Scott

43. Comment #37505 by BaronOchs on May 4, 2007 at 4:44 pm

His cheap shot (and I know he'll say it was not his intent) on that show that believers are rather like chimpanzees doesn't help the debate and is a problem with Dawkins and Dennett.

Do you think people will draw that meaning? He said all humans are only half a chromosome away from chimpanzees, and religion very much seems like it is man-made.

Really there's only so far you can go to avoid misunderstanding from those who don't want to understand.

Other Comments by BaronOchs

44. Comment #37506 by lpetrich on May 4, 2007 at 4:51 pm

I think that a lot of atheist writers are rather careless, repeating things that they ought to check -- and that they can easily check. If you have good Internet access, there isn't much of an excuse, is there?

But just the same, there is a strong case that much of the Gospels is mythical -- Jesus Christ fits Lord Raglan's Mythic-Hero profile remarkably well.

Other Comments by lpetrich

45. Comment #37508 by chbg21808 on May 4, 2007 at 4:54 pm

Re: Comment #37501 by Steve Scott - "He cracks a bit on Dawkins and Dennett, but Hitchins calls it as he sees it."

But that's what I love about 'Hitch' ...He is one of those rare individuals who genuinely thinks for himself.

I've just ordered his latest book and can't wait to read it.

Other Comments by chbg21808

46. Comment #37511 by MelM on May 4, 2007 at 5:13 pm

I like what Hitchens says about religion and I approve of his anger. I watched the "Free Speech" video again yesterday and noted some of the most eloquent anger I've ever seen. Once one has identified an outrage, then one should be angry and it needs to be expressed in the appropriate contexts.

Drop "Chimps" and "frontal lobes"
But, I wish he'd drop the "Chimp" business and the "frontal lobe" business. These are implicitly anti-reason; they say "we can't help it" but the whole point of writing books and trying to get people to think is that "we can help it." Certainly, after the 18th Century Enlightenment, there's no grounds anymore for saying "we can't help it." Before then, superstition and tyranny was almost everywhere and the idea that mankind would stay that way forever would seem plausible.

Anyway, I think "Chimps" and "lobes" are unwarrented and undercut his message. We'd better be able to "help it"; our freedom and even our lives are at stake here.

Other Comments by MelM

47. Comment #37512 by filthyatheist on May 4, 2007 at 5:17 pm

No European, who has not witnessed it for themselves, could possibly believe how racist Dobbs show is. Everynight, for years, he has been promoting explicitly facsist propaganda against Mexicans and other Hispanics.

He accuses them of bringing crime and disease to the US; stealing American jobs; being rapists, drug dealers and murderers. Night after night after night. It is like 'Der Strummer' brought to TV.

The sight of this racist xenophope pinning a US flag lapel onto the inebriate warmongerer Hitchens, should turn the stomach of any decent person.

Other Comments by filthyatheist

48. Comment #37513 by RickM on May 4, 2007 at 5:21 pm

MelM #37494

"...you call for a new enlightenment...". I'm sure that's what he's saying.

Other Comments by RickM

49. Comment #37514 by kkant on May 4, 2007 at 5:24 pm

On the "Krishna virgin birth" issue: I'm not sure which is the correct answer. Certainly Krishna is the 8th child of Devaki and Vasudeva. It is prophesized that the son of Devaki will kill the evil King Kamsa, so Kamsa kills the first seven sons at birth. The 8th son is spirited away to safety via a series of miracles. Sounds a lot like the Herod story, doesn't it. But the reason I think it's a virgin birth is, why the hell would Devaki keep having babies if they're all getting killed? Seems like the only possible reason is that they were virgin births (forced conceptions, or perhaps "divine rape" is a better term). What a wonderful story, eh? Wouldn't it have been easier for God to just appear magically and kill the stupid King, without all the drama.

On the Buddha issue. This one is definitely a virgin birth. A six-tusked elephant appears in her dreams and pokes her in the womb with one of his tusks. Buddha is also seen as one of the 10 incarnations of Vishnu (the "Dasa Avatar"). He's number 9, the most recent one. Number 10 is Kalki, and he hasn't arrived yet. We're just waiting for him to descend to earth on a flying white horse, wielding a sword and cleansing the sinful earth. Any day now. Again, pretty familiar.

Other Comments by kkant

50. Comment #37517 by ungeziefer on May 4, 2007 at 5:30 pm

I have such ambiguous feelings about Mr. Hitchens. On one level he is brilliant (and if you haven't seen "The Trials of Henry Kissinger," rent it -- or find the book), and I have great respect for him.

But he's become such a war monger and neo-con apologist since 9/11 that I find him easy to dismiss.

Still, good to see him in the mainstream American media. I have faith (sorry) that he will eventually regain some of his previous sanity.

(I'm guessing Sam Harris will start getting a lot of attention, too -- mainly because he focuses so much on Islam [which, of course, we all know is "evil" and "the enemy"].)

p.s.: lots of good, accurate descriptions of Dobbs in these comments. Yes, he's hard to pin down politically, and I like him all right; but he needs to see a shrink about his pathological obsession with immigration.

Other Comments by ungeziefer