Hitchens Huffs and Puffs and Blows; God’s House Still Standing

This article was published in the June 11, 2007, edition of The New York Observer.

Christopher Hitchens slashes away at Jews, Christians, Hindus, Muslims and Buddhists.
Christian Witkin
Christopher Hitchens slashes away at Jews, Christians, Hindus, Muslims and Buddhists.

God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything
By Christopher Hitchens
Twelve Publishers, 307 pages, $24.99

A former priest with whom I’m friendly tells a story of the day when he realized he was no longer cut out for a Roman collar. He and his immediate superior, a monsignor, were arguing about how to handle a parish matter that required a choice between idealism (i.e., expanded services to parishioners) and pragmatism (i.e., the expenditure of cash money).

My friend thought the solution was obvious. “Monsignor,” he said, “what would Jesus do?”

The monsignor did a double take. “What,” he sputtered, “does Jesus have to do with this?”

After reading Christopher Hitchens’ polemic, God Is Not Great, I’m left with a variation on the monsignor’s question. What does God have to do with any of the crimes, abuses, brutalities and other atrocities which Mr. Hitchens offers as proof of heavenly mediocrity?

Mr. Hitchens expends over 300 pages of energy to argue that religion screws up everything. Richard Brookhiser, assessing the role of religion in the post-9/11 world, made a more subtle point in a piece in this newspaper several years ago. Religion, Mr. Brookhiser wrote, offers comfort to many and pretext to a few. Mr. Hitchens chooses to focus his moral indignation on the few while ignoring the many.

Nearly every theme in Mr. Hitchens’ book—the hypocrisy of holiness, the irrationality of blind faith, the criminal righteousness of true believers—can be countered by an illustration of the ways in which religion ennobles human activity. One such recent counter-narrative was written by a Jesuit friend of mine named James Martin, whose book bore a title almost as shocking as Mr Hitchens’: Searching for God at Ground Zero. Mr. Hitchens and others might cite 9/11 as evidence of religion’s murderous pitfalls. Father Martin, who worked with rescue personnel at Ground Zero in the aftermath of the attacks, came to a different conclusion: He found love and decency in the smoking ruins of the World Trade Center, and attributed that discovery to the presence of God.

Ah, but where was God when those monsters crashed airplanes into the towers? So might Mr. Hitchens counter Father Martin, and rightfully so. I don’t have the answer, and I’m guessing neither does Jim.

Mr. Hitchens, however, believes he does have the answers: Since time immemorial, human beings in their ignorance have placed their faith in fairy tales about miracles, virgin births and angelic dictation of holy books. Thus did the world become a vale of tears.

Mr. Hitchens has compiled a prodigious litany of profanities committed in the name of the sacred. For that reason, any religious person would do well to read Mr. Hitchens—there is never a good reason not to, in any case—as a reminder of the ways in which religion indeed offers pretext not only to suicide bombers, but despots, lunatics and control freaks the world over.

But if Mr. Hitchens wishes to inspire mass conversions to secular humanism, he might well have sought to appeal to the better angels of those who, well, believe in angels. Mr. Hitchens, however, displays little faith in the faithful. He tells of serving on a panel with a religious broadcaster who asks him to imagine himself in a strange city as night falls. A group of men approaches. Would Mr. Hitchens feel more safe or less safe knowing that the men have just come from a prayer meeting?

The broadcaster surely believed he had trapped his God-denying antagonist, but as countless debaters have learned to their chagrin, one does not so easily win points against Mr. Hitchens. He replied that the question actually was not hypothetical, that he had been in Belfast, Beirut, Bombay, Belgrade, Bethlehem and Baghdad. “In each case I can say absolutely, and can give my reasons, why I would feel immediately threatened if I thought that the group of men approaching me in the dusk were coming from a religious observance,” he writes. And that, he notes, was just a list of cities beginning with the letter “B.”

A fair point, one might say, given the histories of those wounded cities. But is it? I have been to only one of the places on Mr. Hitchens’ B list—Belfast. I was there for a July 12 extravaganza when Protestants paraded through Catholic neighborhoods and sang nasty songs about the Pope. But I came away from this display convinced that the so-called religious conflict in Ireland had nothing to do with God and everything to do with the holding and wielding of power. The Presbyterians of Northern Ireland objected to Catholics not because the latter believed in transubstantiation or filled their churches with graven images. The conflict there was about power and patronage, not the Papacy.

Mr. Hitchens cites a plainly apocryphal story from Belfast as evidence of yet another way in which religion ruins everything; worse, Mr. Hitchens insists that the story is both true and a local joke: Next Page >

  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • Newsvine
  • Google
  • Yahoo
  • Technorati
  • Facebook
  • Stumble Upon
  • Netvibes
  • Windows Live

Comments
Post a comment

olegna says:

"the cultural-leftist theory that militant Islam is merely an expression of authentic culture and thus beyond the judgment of oppressive-minded Westerners."

Huh? I realize accusing the secularists of being soft on "militant Islam" (which I define as people who blow up commercial airplanes and subway cars, not the sliver of 1.2 billion Muslims that think women shouldn't drive) is a fashionable platitude among the right wingers and the Hilary Democrats, but I have never met a secularist who is softer on jihadists than s/he is on all those poor, persecuted Christians and Jews living in America.

It's probably worth noting that the accusation that secularists are multi-culti defenders of terrorism (which is for all intents and purposes a synonym for "militant Islam") is a line right out of Karl Rove's notes on how to alienate the Real Left. And it's certainly the same BS that The Hitch has been blathering about for years. I feel compelled to ask the author of this article: Why criticize a man whose argument you've co-opted to paint secularists and defenders of terrorism under the banner of cultural sensitivity?

The Hitch has used the same argument, implying that if I advocate for religious tolerance (which all true secularists do, since it's in their interest as the world's ideological minority) then I somehow support genital mutilation and the overthrow of the West. I call bullshit.

joel714 says:

JOEL FROM PALM BEACH

SEEMS TO ME THAT THE SECULARISTS AND GOD DENIERS THAT I HAVE MET, ARE SOMEWHAT AT SEA WITH THEIR OWN CONVICTIONS. RATHER THAN BELEIVING IN A DIETY, THEY SUBSTITUTE A COMPLETE NEGETIVISM ABOUT LIFE AND PEOPLE, AND THE GOODNESS THAT MOST BELIEVERS DISPLAY IN THEIR DAILY LIVES. IT'S EASY TO PICK OUT THE "CONGRESSMAN JEFFERSONS" WHEN YOU WISH TO ARGUE THE CRIMINALITY OF OUR CONGRESS, BUT TO OVERLOOK THE MAJORITY TO ILLUSTRATE A POINT ABOUT THE MINORITY IS DISHONEST, AND A DISTORTION OF REALITY.
HITCHINS IS A VERY BRIGHT GUY, BUT HIS WORDS TELL A STORY THAT I FIND UNBELIEVABLE AND UNACCEPTABLE.

Mary5240 says:

Mary from Queens NY
Why is religion even necessary to "ennoble human activity"? Both "good" and "evil" are born into us as part of our natural instincts of socialization and survival. Naturalists can point to plenty of examples of animals displaying"noble activity" on behalf of humans and each other without any evidence of their behaviors being "inspired" by religious sentiment. My main objection to religion is its tendency to be coercive -- to pose that vague endemic threat against non-believers.

Ash in NYC (not verified) says:

Gloway writes: "After reading Christopher Hitchens’ polemic, God Is Not Great, I’m left with a variation on the monsignor’s question. What does God have to do with any of the crimes, abuses, brutalities and other atrocities which Mr. Hitchens offers as proof of heavenly mediocrity?"

Huh?

I've just finished Hitchens's book. Did we read the same book? Clearly god does not exist for Hitchens; only for those people who profess a belief in a god and still managed to to commit all the "crimes, abuses brutalities and other atrocities" cited in the book.

Post a comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd><br> <p> <i> <b> <embed> <img> <blockquote> <span> <strikethrough> <u>
  • Use <!--pagebreak--> to create page breaks.

More information about formatting options

By checking this box you are giving permission for Observer staff to contact you to obtain contact information and permissions required for publication.