The Blackwell has a strange position. On the one hand, he fallaciously argues that America is a Christian nation by appealing to a partial telling of the historical facts and personal characteristics of the Founders. On the other hand, in response to Hitchens' debunking of this argument he responds by suggesting that those that disagree with the Christian exclusivist position is to favor the exclusion of religion from the public sphere. But, it is clearly fallacious to argue that rejecting Christian exclusivism implies a curtailing of the individual's right to practice religion. Is it just me, or is that a stupid argument? A similiar kind of defect seems to have a hold on the folks that think gay adoption would violate their right to practice their religion at work in such a away as to deny the rights of others.


Salon.com
Comments
Although, not a big fan, I think Hitchins clobbered him.
Thanks for posting this. Sometimes I think Hitchens is an arrogant ass, but when he's paired with the likes of Blackwell, he comes off positively graceful!