Hitchens on religion, Coloradolib on Hitchens
The most eloquent post in my archives is "The ghost of Christopher Hitchens." In it, I attacked one of the world's sharpest writers for spending the last five years abusing his liver and making apologies for Tony Blair.
I don't have the heft to dent Hitchens. But I still thought long and hard before I clicked publish.
Hitchens is on my mind again because of his recent comments about Mormonism. From William K. Wolfrum via Crooks and Liars:
CH: "I say that anyone who believes that stuff is an idiot... Especially at a time when people are always saying it's the Republican Party that's run by religious crackpots and nutbags. And it's very important to point out these people have a big foothold in the Democratic Party, too... I think less of [Democratic Senate majority leader Harry Reid] because of the stupid cult of which he's a member."
Wolfrum goes on to write "Hitchens should be ashamed of himself for singling out Mormonism and apologize to all Mormons." But it's important to put the comments in context. Hitchens hates all religions. He once said, "I don't regard Islam as the enemy, I regard religion as the enemy." And in Letters to a Young Contrarian he wrote:
"I'm not even an atheist so much as I am an antitheist; I not only maintain that all religions are versions of the same untruth, but I hold that the influence of churches, and the effect of religious belief, is positively harmful."
But right now, any stab at Mormonism stings especially hard. It is a religion under fire from evangelicals upset that the GOP's most conservative presidential frontrunner, Mitt Romney, is Mormon. It is a growing, young religion, the adherents of which may comprise 5% of America by 2042. And it is a religion concentrated in the West, which is crucial to longterm Democratic ambitions.
Hitchens' comments also cut deeply because they assail the very heart of politics. Compromise is based on respect between adversaries. How can Hitchens respect someone who says that a blue sky is red? What if 92% of America insists on it?
Is it any wonder that Hitchens has gone off the deep end? How many antitheist neocons are there these days? Not many.
Congratulations to Hitchens for having the courage to be completely alone. I hope that one day, I show the same strength. I just pray it doesn't drive me bonkers.
I don't have the heft to dent Hitchens. But I still thought long and hard before I clicked publish.
Hitchens is on my mind again because of his recent comments about Mormonism. From William K. Wolfrum via Crooks and Liars:
CH: "I say that anyone who believes that stuff is an idiot... Especially at a time when people are always saying it's the Republican Party that's run by religious crackpots and nutbags. And it's very important to point out these people have a big foothold in the Democratic Party, too... I think less of [Democratic Senate majority leader Harry Reid] because of the stupid cult of which he's a member."
Wolfrum goes on to write "Hitchens should be ashamed of himself for singling out Mormonism and apologize to all Mormons." But it's important to put the comments in context. Hitchens hates all religions. He once said, "I don't regard Islam as the enemy, I regard religion as the enemy." And in Letters to a Young Contrarian he wrote:
"I'm not even an atheist so much as I am an antitheist; I not only maintain that all religions are versions of the same untruth, but I hold that the influence of churches, and the effect of religious belief, is positively harmful."
But right now, any stab at Mormonism stings especially hard. It is a religion under fire from evangelicals upset that the GOP's most conservative presidential frontrunner, Mitt Romney, is Mormon. It is a growing, young religion, the adherents of which may comprise 5% of America by 2042. And it is a religion concentrated in the West, which is crucial to longterm Democratic ambitions.
Hitchens' comments also cut deeply because they assail the very heart of politics. Compromise is based on respect between adversaries. How can Hitchens respect someone who says that a blue sky is red? What if 92% of America insists on it?
Is it any wonder that Hitchens has gone off the deep end? How many antitheist neocons are there these days? Not many.
Congratulations to Hitchens for having the courage to be completely alone. I hope that one day, I show the same strength. I just pray it doesn't drive me bonkers.
Labels: Christopher Hitchens, punditry
7 Comments:
Christopher Hitchens is a brilliant writer and a true public intellectual.
I was most disspointed iwhen he used his talents and wrote a long article for Vanity Fair about how New York City was stupid for enacting a smoking ban.
As you state, Hitchens doesn't apologize for anything or anyone. He's hit the Catholics a lot harder than the Mormon's over Mother Theresa and Pope John Paul II....as you mention he's an equal opportunity religion hater.
Like you point out, Hitchens is the rarest of birds, a right-winger who professes no religious affiliation. One thing about him that stood out last time I saw him on Real Time, Bill Maher's show on HBO, the fear in him was palpable. So that, I believe, explains why he's a right-winger. He's bought into all the fear-mongering the Pubs have been peddling since 9/11. I beleive he's right however, when he opines that religion is the cause of much of the war, inhumanity and death in this world. But he's dead wrong in his stated belief that religious or church organizations have, "a foothold in the Democratic Party. . ." The major difference between Democrats and Republicans on that issue is that Democrats generally leave their religion, whatever it may be, out of their politics. I had no idea what Harry Reid's religious practice was, and frankly, I believe that's the way it's supposed to be in a country that separates church and state.
Despite it all, Hitchens' biography of Thomas Jefferson is still on my Christmas list.
Sweet, I've been quoted out of context ;)
What I wrote was this, actually:
Hitchens should be ashamed of himself for singling out Mormonism and apologize to all Mormons. All religions are cults, after all. To pick only on the Mormons is bad form.
My point is this: It's quite easy to go off on Mother Theresa, or Mormons, or Scientologists. It's another to have the stones to go after the Jesus Freak in the White House who is running a faith-based government.
Going off on Reid was a purely partisan move by Hitchens, whatever his belief system is (or isn't for that matter). Otherwise, he'd endlessly preface his thoughts on Bush with "That Jesus Freak."
--WKK
WKK,
Ack, didn't mean to quote you out of context. Thanks for chiming in. Although I think my point stands. Hitchens isn't picking "only on Mormons." He's picking on all religions, all the time.
I realize I forgot to leave a trackback. Apologies. Glad you found this post.
Crap, and it's supposed to be "WKW" for my initials. The "WKK" looks way too much like the initials for a racial group. Like KKK's Wrestling organization. ;)
And you're point is taken, but mine remains. He was speaking of Reid personally, and that he not be taken seriously because he is Mormon. Has Hitchens said Bush should not be taken seriously because he's a Christian?
I mean, to me, there are a plethora of reasons not to take Bush seriously, and that's definitely one of them.
Fair play and Regards,
--WKW
A relevant quote from Christopher Hitchens via Leiter Reports:
"George Bush may subjectively be a Christian... but he - and the U.S. armed forces - have objectively done more for secularism than the whole of the American agnostic community combined and doubled. The demolition of the Taliban, the huge damage inflicted on the al-Qaida network, and the confrontation with theocratic saboteurs in Iraq represent huge advances for the non-fundamentalist forces in many countries."
Post a Comment
<< Home