When if comes to critique of religion, folks on the left have a nasty habit of tying themselves in ecumenical knots. For example, if you want to see these knots tied in front of you, simply criticize Islam in mixed conversation. Eyes will flicker, and someone in the group will say, “well, Christians have been just as bad.” Even the president gets in on the act. It’s an understandable habit.
Christopher Hitchens didn’t care much for this predilection. This video is an example of this. Hitch was supposed to appear on stage at Town Hall in June of 2010. This appearance was canceled due to his cancer diagnosis, which killed him about a year and a half later. In honor of that missed appearance, here’s Hitch in action:
I can see a future where Muslim countries start banning cell phones and computers. They really verge on a new, and more deadly, dark age.
Hitch considered all religious beliefs “sinister and infantile,” and lambasted organized religion as “the main source of hatred in the world,” but was especial disdainful of the Abrahamic religions and held Islam in exceptional scorn. His support for the Iraq war and his remarks about jihad, Sharia law, etc., could have come right out of the Neocon Talking Points Playbook (or, more likely, he wrote it for them).
The problem is this. Nearly a quarter of humanity is Muslim, a tiny minority of whom are violent jihadists and terrorists. (You can say the same of Christianity.) It’s one thing to criticize badly-behaving Muslims, but something else to stereotype and scapegoat a whole religious community. Badmouthing an entire religion is a slippery slope that ultimately encourages and validates bigotry and inter-religious conflict, playing into the hands of bad actors on all sides.
You’d expect Hitch, whose genius was accepting and coming to terms with the world as it is, to be one of the first people to realize this.
@2…
The dude was ‘Buckley-esque’ in his hubris.
Well, we know that no Muslim extremist is going to kill Hitchens – he’s already dead!
Most of the time he was very consistent. He “badmouthed” all religions and all religious people universally for what I believe were pretty good reasons.
And I’d like to point out that for an outspoken atheist to “badmouth” any particular religion is not at all the same thing as for a religious person to “badmouth” any particular other religion.
Bigoted religious persons of whatever denomination who take any comfort or support from Mr. Hitchens are simply not paying attention. I really can’t stress that enough. So if Mr. Hitchens negative statements about any religion, including Islam, are seen as a slippery slope, then it is a slippery slope built on ignorance.
@4 You might be killed by Muslim extremists, but you’re far more likely to be killed by lightning or a frozen turd falling form an airliner passing overhead.
@5 You call me “ignorant?” That’s laughable. The video speaks for itself. It’s a fact that Hitchens singled out Islam; see, e.g.:
“Christopher Hitchens, the late author and atheist extraordinaire, made a career out of bashing religions. If it believed in a god, then he had no use for it, except to make a career out of lampooning it and dealing out the harshest of criticisms. But when it came to all the religions of the world, ‘Hitch’ had a special place in his anger for Islam. … Hitchens calls Islam ‘the most depraved’ of religions.”
http://www.inquisitr.com/17356.....gL1Kcuq.99
It’s not me who’s ignorant.
@7,
any argument that insists that Mr. Hitchens writing, speaking, and work give support to religious bigots is likely to be an argument predicated on ignorance – that is ignorance of the fullness of what Mr. Hitchens believed. Mr. Hitchens had contempt for all religion. From time to time he directed his contempt in the direction of one particular religion. But ultimately, any religious bigot who would cite Hitchens to support their preferred version of faith would be building sand castles. One delusional patient cannot rationally cite the doctor’s diagnosis of another patient’s delusion as proof of their own.
No doubt, the video clearly demonstrates that in the years prior to his death Mr. Hitchens singled out Islam for his condemnation. But to suggest that his criticism of Islam can be employed by religious bigots to support their own bigotry can only be possible if those religious bigots are ignorant of Mr. Hitchens universal contempt for all religion. It may happen. Since among bigots, religious bigots seem to be particularly skilled when it comes to leveraging ignorance in service of evil, I have little doubt that it does happen. But it is still ignorant.
And it scarcely serves as a capable argument for Mr. Hitchens’ silence on the matter of religion. He was an atheist. And a humanist. He detested religion because of the insistence at the core of every religion that the power of human reason must be set aside in favor of faith in that which cannot be tested or falsified. He believed strongly and wrote often that this imperative to reject reason and the rational world in favor of faith was ultimately responsible for much of human suffering. He believed that to turn away from that debate in order to avoid inciting zealots could only serve to validate faith and ultimately its role in human suffering.
Hitchens undermined a lifetime of reasoned rational thought by actively supporting the Iraq war, a position which appeared clearly to be based on a high level of animosity toward muslims above christians. What a fall. To go from being Christopher Hitchens to being a follower of Thomas Friedman. (Friedman: we can’t get at Saudi Arabia for their part in 9/11, but Arabs are so fucked up that we should go house to house with guns in Basra and say “suck on this.” Because they all know each other? I never figured it out.)
If he could have gotten the bigotted part of his amazing brain out of his ass, he would have seen that much of what is driving the underlying violence in the Mddle East is more related to long time colonial, political, and economic repression, not to mention sectarian divisions that have been tamped down and glossed over since World War I (!!).
We are watching that right now as the Sunni parts of Iraq and Syria are turning into a larger whole. These are the same regions that were forcibly attached to non-Sunni Arab ruling houses that were named “Iraq” and “Syria” by the victorious powers after World War I.
I’m sure ISIS is evil, but that isn’t why they are winning and continuing to win support.
Question: Adherents of what religion are currently rampaging through the Middle-East sawing off peoples heads and generally terrorizing the citizenry?
A.) Catholicism
B.) Shintoism
C.) Russian Orthodox Church
D.) Islam
E.) Wicca
F.) Don’t ask me, I’m just a fuzzy-brained Liberal who is afraid of tarnishing my Political-Correctness Merit Badge.
@10,
Great one!
(You can say the same of Christianity.) – Really senile schismatic IDIOT Wabbit?
Hitchens also hated any religion or religious expression in the US Military!
@8 “But to suggest that his criticism of Islam can be employed by religious bigots to support their own bigotry … ”
The error in your argument is that I didn’t suggest that. What I did suggest is that when an atheist says the same things as religious bigots, it has similar effects on susceptible listeners. Probably the best thing you can say in defense of Hitchens in this situation is those kinds of people don’t listen to Hitchens.
@10 Don’t forget the U.S. Marines who blew babies’ heads off with M-16s at point-blank range because, uh, the babies may have planted the IEDs that blew up their buddies.
@11 Well yeah, actually you can, now that you mention it. Gott mitt uns, and all that. “Kill a commie for Christ,” as we used to say in Vietnam. The Reds weren’t so hypocritical as to justify their killing by invoking God’s name, although of course that doesn’t excuse them.
@10 Got a question for ya. Who dropped napalm on villages in a third world country?
A) ISIS
B) Iraq under Saddam
C) Russia under Putin
D) Saudi Arabia
E) Wicca
F) USA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbEhsqStPTM
But we’re Christians, so that makes it okay, right?
Why don’t we just get out of the Middle East and let those zealots decide their own fates? In a short time, different sects of Islam will be killing other Muslims for Allah.
@16, Really? Roger McChiponshoulder, comparing the deeds of ISIS (and the like) to the use of napalm during the Vietnam War? You’d get better results comparing apples to ocean liners.
Oh, and no we are not all Christians.
@17 Well there are those things called Military Contractors and Arms Manufacturers. They love the middle east easy money and they will sell to anyone and both sides or three sides if here are three sides. That and oil. Though we may not need it Europe, China, Japan ect are part of the world that uses oil.
@18 Hey our tax dollars at work. Go Air Force! Seems we still got napalm in the inventory. You don’t want to be on the wrong end of Puff the Magic Dragon either. Of course we got the nukes too. Aren’t we just wonderful people, but I do think we do need a military and that means being able to kill and cause mayhem. Of course I rather think our politicians should like declare war before we make war, but when we do I agree with General Sherman. I also agree about making the other guy die for his country. (Gen Patton) War is a nasty business and it’s about killing and we the people should remember that. After all we are a nation made up of people that tried to get out of countries that went to war often.
@6
Since you live on final approach to Runway 16L at SeaTac, you’re more likely to get hit by a frozen turd from an airplane. You’re also more likely to get zapped by a Muslim, since you like in Seattle, a large town.
We’re about even on the lightning strike issue.
Hitchens was right on Islam. If ISIS doesn’t prove that, you’re neither thinking nor seeing. Enough of the “they aren’t real Muslims”; if all these terrorist groups say they’re Muslim, just why are we denying that?