It is odd that people seem insistent on repeating Chris's incompetent slurs. I mean do you really expect people to believe that because Blessed Theresa ran hospice for the poorest of the poor that she was a muderer? Please.
Chris was the last of the 19th century type of Brit, arrogant, drunken colonialist, virulently anti-Catholic bigot. He had more in common with Trevelyan than modern people.
It would be to his benefit if his name was associated with a Saint, instead his last decade means that his name is associated with neo-conservative warmongers like Cheney.
Maybe his history caused him to consider conversion as the author of the book suggests.
Unlikely, according to his son, who did watch him draw his final breaths.
Another from the Guardian:
http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...nversion-christopher-hitchens-defiant-to-last
Like the cleverest spin doctors, Taunton gets the Times and others to suggest that the man he debated and travelled with experienced a deathbed conversion without quite saying that he did. Christopher stared “into the depths of eternity”, allegedly. He teetered on the edge of faith but did not, even in Taunton’s account, fall for it. The naive reader is left suspecting that, if only he had lived longer, Hitchens would have turned into a holy roller.
I put the book aside last week. There seemed no need to write about Taunton, as Matthew d’Ancona and Padraig Reidy had already taken him to pieces with admirable vigour. But then Alexander Hitchens wrote back about that “bloody book”.
On the deathbed conversion – I spent my father’s final weeks and days at his bedside and watched him draw his final breath and die, and can assure you that there was no hint of any sort of conversion (as I’m sure you have already guessed). In fact, we barely spoke about religion at all except for joint expressions of frustration at the god botherers who made the rounds in the ICU and other units where dying people could be preyed upon by vulturous Christians.
I want to print what he said because lies on the web can last for ever and need to be countered. Indeed, they have always needed to be countered. In the 19th century, American believers claimed Tom Paine had died “howling and terrified”, recanting his assaults on organised religion and the reliability of the Bible.
It is also in line with what he himself said. To paraphrase, there was a chance that in the process of dying, as his faculties shut down he would no longer be the person he was, and with vastly diminished intellect, the shell of a person that he had become might develop a faith. That would not have been him. There is also no reason, other than this book to believe that he even considered it. Given how the author describes Hitchens' friends, he doesn't sound like someone to confide in.