So Hitchens, who remains a left progressive in practically every area except the conflict between the West and radical Islam, is a neocon? What would have been interesting, even if a bit off-topic, would have been an examination of areas of agreement between Hedges and Hitchens if conflict with Islam, (a totalitarian religion in Hitchens' view), had been temporarily ruled out of order. Hedges' religious left views are not that different from secular humanist Hitchens' views. Hitchens, whatever the extremes he's taken his foreign policy, anti-Islam views, remains a "progressive" or leftist in Western terms in terms of the function and responsiblity of government to regulate economies and provide benefits to those who cannot provide for themselves.

Forty years ago Hitchens' views were mainstream liberal views, if one substitutes "Communism" for Islam. JFK, Adlai Stevenson, Hubert Humphrey and Arthur Schlesinger were all anti-Communist "liberals". Indeed, those who urged recognition of Cuba and disarmament were radicals (e.g., the SDS), not liberals. Indeed, until recent political winds made virulent militarist views untenable in the Democratic primary race, liberals like Hilary Clinton, Joseph Biden and Barack Obama favored continued, if more "effective", military action in Iraq and an anti-Iran policy.

Hitchens, whose atheist views resonate with me, although I try to acknowledge the good that some religions do and the artistic contributions of churches to Western civilization, is a mainstream liberal, 1964 style. He and George Bush would not have a peaceful chat except on the matter of "victory" over Al Queda.

Perhaps Hitchens psychologically needed an issue to distinguish himself from other columnists at Nation, his former editorial home, once anti-war sentiment became the prevalent view on the "left". Or maybe he just likes to skewer opponents, and his assumption of the putative role of the atheist warmonger provides unparalled BBQ opportunities for a world-class, albeit a bit nasty, debater.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

One nice thing about this debate is to highlight the reasons why those binary worldviews are dangerous - not only because of the kinds of actions they can lead people to, but simply because they're incorrect. As edith points out above, it's just factually wrong to call Hitchens a "neo-con", but this term is tossed around now to include everything from Friedman-style free-marketeers to defense hawks to big money interests (see Dick Cheney) to religious conservatives, all the way to actual ex-Trostkyists like Hitchens (and indeed Leo Strauss, whose followers are the core of what's usually called "neo-conservatism", which is really a late-period mutation of hawkish liberal internationalism).

The fact is all of these classifications are different. Religion can line up with or against leftist economic policies (in the 1930's, the famous "red states" were hotbeds of religiously zealous, anti-evolution, anti-business, anti-imperialist left-radicalism like that of William Jennings Bryan from Nebraska). Either of these can line up for or against hawkishness, for or against authoritarianism in government, and so on, through any number of dualities.

The "dualistic" mindset is one that, among other things, mistakes a temporary configuration of alliances for a fundamental philosophical divide between radically opposed views of the world. Actually, it seems that historically the over-arching philosophies which explain things like why anti-abortionists and defense hawks and pro-business conservatives are aligned are invented after the fact to account for, and promote the stability of, some alliance that already exists.

The two-party system in this country doesn't help - because it promotes division into two blocs, and then, as the blocs try to maintain internal solidarity, drives them to invent spurious philosophies whose practical purpose is that they obscure our understanding of reality. I challenge anyone to point to a genuine conceptual basis for either the Republican or Democratic party which stands up to any serious scrutiny. This isn't the cause of binary thinking - if anything, it's the other way around. The underlying cause seems to have more to do with the desire to understand things quickly and easily without work. But politically- and religiously-involved people are particularly prone to this defect in thinking, and I suggest this is one reason why.

Anyway, this kind of debate is great, because it underscores that the divisions on issues are much more complex than the monolithic left/right framework would lead us to suggest. Seeing the complexity and diversity, and above all substantive content (rather than the red-team/blue-team type of empty form) of these views is, for my money, the very substance of democracy. Good job on reporting it - maybe a little less head-scratching dismay over how it's so hard to know which side you're on would be nice. But anything that undermines the monoliths is good!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hitchens is doing a great service by calling Islam for what it is and for making no apologies for the acts of violence committed in its name. "Callow leftism" is a perfect description of those Leftists / liberals who serve as apologists for this 7th century cult while excoriating Christianity at every turn. I might also describe it as "radical chic" or, perhaps, denial that comes from fear and dhimmitude.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Brits are in droves running from the Drunken Child Harming Roman Catholic Priests writings called the New Testament. However, the error in that is when they associate God with the filthy dribble of the pedophile group. Hopefully the orginal message of Christianity will still be seen beneath the added fungus the priests added. I give you Titus 1:10 as read online at the vatican bible. I give you the drunken wishes of priests to turn water into wine. I give you the trinity with all the machinations of a mass of serpents that cannot be untangled. The ring of truth is clear, Saul/Paul simply said, look, the Jews aren't the chosen ones, we all are. You are all God's children, not just those who chose themselves. The Jews gave a concept of a single God, rules to live by, and satan. Satan had to ask permission to be a baddy. (See Job) The Devil is an autonomous pagan concept added into the New Test. by the priests who can't let go of pagan ways. The cross is nothing more than a sword with a dead rabbi hanging on it. However, christianity, or truth, shines through, not Jesus the truth, but Christ meaning truth. Don't give up God you Brits. Give up on the smell added by the Roman defoulers of the truth. The son of God, to show God, would merely pick up a blade of grass, and say something to the effect, "This simple single blade of grass cannot be made by man. Man can be given all else in God's world, but without the smallest building block of this simple blade of grass, he cannot make this simple creation." Priests would say, "He turned water into wine, burp, to show he was the only son of God." Line them up, from the Pope on down, put them in prison for life, and save the world's children. However, don't forsake your creation, or it's creator(s).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Debates have rules. These fools knew what they were getting into: a shouting match. You don't need a moderator for THAT.
I am always amazed at how hard a professional atheist works at it; harder than any believer except maybe Muktar al Sadr.
And looking at the erudite comments so far, I have no more to say, except to ISlamIslam:

Try READING the Holy Q'Uran instead just placing your gluteous maximus on it. Jihad is an INNER struggle, not a holy war ( cf CRUSADES; cf SANHEDRIN conduct towards non-orthodox believers in Judaism i.e. Jesus) and the first duty of a good Muslim is to do good. The hijackers of religion in the name of nationalism or ethnism are not an ad for Hitchins; they are an ad for reform. Ask Martin Luther. Today's military budget of the US is yesterday's indulgences.

JESUS, Protect us from your Followers.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hitchens, who admits to drinking heavily, once wrote that his daily intake of alcohol was enough "to kill or stun the average mule."

The confession should concern the few people who care about him because a recent study published by the American Medical Association found that just two glasses of wine per week can cause brain damage in teenagers.

The AMA report pointed out that while moderate consumption can produce positive effects such reduced heart attacks, alcohol is still a poison that kills brain cells.

After decades of guzzling hard liquor like Johnny Walker, Hitchen’s gray matter may indeed have been damaged―a possible explanation for his bitter tirades against religious people of all faiths.

Another reason for Hitchens’ always angry, antisocial behavior could be the “Dry Drunk Syndrome” (DDS).

The term applies to boozers who try to stay sober without addressing the underlying psychological problems that may have caused their alcoholism -- such as suppressed guilt from making huge sums of money by hurting other human beings instead of helping them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Whatever he says, or writes now, and however he has changed over the years, I am now and will be ever appreciative for his exposure of Mother Teresa, who he called a fanatic, a fundamentalist, and a fraud.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Two egos in prancing and displaying their rigidities and their shallowness.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Having heard both men speak, although separately, I must say that Hitchens makes a poor proponent of atheism. He never lets a point rest, and he's intolerant of anyone who disagrees with him. During the run-up to the Iraq war, he called Jacques Chirac a "pimp for Saddam Hussein" for disagreeing with Bush and Blair. I can only surmise with others that it must be the booze. Hedges, on the other hand, won me over with "War is a Force that Gives Us Meaning," in which he admitted that he got addicted to the rush of covering armed conflicts. He's rational to the point of frustration, which is not what a lot of people expect of a man of faith.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

All Religions are based on war,radicalism,manipulation, and control. If this is the way to heaven, none of us will ever get there. There's only one seat left on the throne in heaven. Do you think it's for you? Yeah, man made religion is evil , presumptuous, and pretentious.I don't apologize for Islam or any other religion, they all have the same history.They are all very bizarre.Eternal life,72 virgins,streets paved in gold. Religion is the antithesis of peace. Jesus was a advocate of peace, man took over and turned it into a conflict. Recall the Crusades? We are still trying to FORCE our beliefs on each other in a bloody ,brutal fashion in the name of God,Allah, Abraham,ect.. I doubt,very seriously that this is OK with God;et al.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Islam is by far the most dangerous religion on Earth and it should be destroyed by force.

Really? Like the Romans tried to destroy Christianity?
Let them destroy themselves or not. Don't make martyrs, it just reinforces their beliefs. To advocate war on a religion is truly stupid and medieval and with nuclear weapons this could be Armagedon Reason is a better weapon in the fight for a rational world--even though a good outcome is unlikely given our numbers and falling resources. However, it is the only approach that is logical and in keeping with civilized values.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What this World needs is a good holy war. Short of thermonuclear annihilation, how do you propose to do this?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Please report a comment calling for wiping out a religion practiced by 1.3 billion people "by force." If that's not inappropriate, what is?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ateo

As has been (and currently is) Christianity. Death, destruction and all in the name of bullshit. Any religion that indoctrinates its members into a totalitarianism of belief without the possibility of dissent is disgusting. Islam is the same totalitarian mind numbing belief structure that exemplifies Christianity; not so sure about Judaism.

Force? Destroy? I put the whole lot of you under the same banner of unreason. Live by the rules written by apologists and illiterates to boot? You must be joking! Why would I want to?

I hold that I am able to live my life quite properly, with compassion and empathy for my fellow humans and our cousins - the other primates. I could never adhere to a concept that I am special, listened to by a 'god'. That I hold 'dominion'? What a wank.

Our universe is grand and doesn't seem to stop. We may be the only really sentient beings - I don't know.

I do know that your religious right is as destructive as fundamentalist Islam, fundamentalist Roman Catholicism, fundamentalist Zionism and any other fundamentalist regime you may care to name (including Naziism and Communism, as practised by the power hungry and non-communist {but let's pretend that we are for 'the people'}power mongers that bubbled to the surface of human greed.

All religion (and anything that states that you have to 'believe') is dangerous and all totalitarianisn is manifestly dangerous. Is there a difference? I don't think so. Sway the masses into a belief system? Yuk, I cannot countenance that at all.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Whoa! What religion are you?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

'Islam is by far the most dangerous religion on Earth and it should be destroyed by force.'

Spoken like a true Christian. You are a complete idiot. Show us where all the Christian-bashing exists. That, you fool, is a myth not unlike the 'liberal media' myth. I say both religions are for the weak, but I also say I believe in your right to be a weak-minded fool.

If you had any real values you would avoid the knee-jerk intolerance of the so un-Christian Christians who profess to be so righteous and all-knowing.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Usually when a conversion takes place, it is from some godless position to belief in a deity. Hitchens' conversion takes an odd form in that it substitutes Leo Strauss for God. The sole philosophical underpinning of the so-called neo-conservative movement is a trendy mix of Hobbes, Machiavelli, and Plato--the staples of Strauss's cultish philosophy. From Hobbes Strauss got the idea of a brutish human nature and a "war of all against all." From Machivelli, he got the idea of the crafty use of politics that enabled the strong to survive and rule. From Plato, he borrowed the notion that only the elite are fit to rule, and that the hoi-polloi should be fed "noble" lies to keep them in line. We see all this in Hitchens' bluster about a war of civilizations and the need to destroy Islam. We should do this in whose name? Certainly not a Christian God, even though it is convenient to enlist these modern-day crusaders in the battle. For Hitchens, we should do it in the name of Leo Strauss--although that is a little esoteric secret that is reserved for the elite. Hitchens apparently thinks he belongs in this circle. Perhaps he's only a tired, worn-out drunk who thinks he can squeeze a little bit of publicity from a fading career.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

According to the 1987 classic, The Different Drum: Community Making and Peace, Dr. Scott Peck defines the spiritual life as fluid and that one may pass back and forth repeatedly through any of the four-probably more-stages of the soul.

Stage one upon this journey -that begins from within-is essentially our infancy in the spiritual life. Like a wild child, a person in this stage reflects the inner chaotic and anti-social, unregenerate soul that is interested only in its own self-satisfaction and ego, much like the stereotypical spoiled child. Stage one people may claim to love others, but their behavior reflects they love their own pleasure, money, power, prestige, and security above any other. For stage one people, it really is all about them.

Stage two souls have not yet been set fully free and prefer the security of a higher human authority than themselves for guidance. They submit to institutions, scripture, dogma, ritual, ministers, or gurus. This is the most appropriate stage for older children and most adults who live busy lives just trying to keep bread on the table and a dry roof above. The difference between a stage one and stage two soul, is that a one wouldn't even notice a neighbor in need, while the two has awoken to the fact that we are to be our neighbor's keepers and they will respond to a friend-and like the good Samaritan, even to a total stranger in need.

Most theologians would agree that the opposite of faith is not disbelief: the opposite of faith is fear.


Stage three souls have not just fearlessly awoken, they have evolved! This evolution has led them to the realization of what Christ was really talking about in the Sermon of the Mount AKA:The Beatitudes.

A stage three soul will see that a neighbor is everyone on the planet and not just those who think and look the same. Stages three's are seekers, doubters, skeptics, atheists, agnostics and frequently adults who grew up disenchanted with institutionalized religion. Their inherent intellectual curiosity leads them to seek their own way towards the Mystery of the Divine through philosophy and the study of multiple faith paths choosing and discarding according to their "inner light." Stage three souls often become activists for social justice and reform.

And then there is stage 4...

http://www.wearewideawake.org/

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Since I was reared in the rural South, son-of-a-preacherman, my perspective comes from that upbringing that has been flavored with worldwide travels to many countries. A good bit of my travelling has been to out-of-the-way places for extended periods of time. My one "big picture" that has evolved is this: we are all the same, but our politicians tell us differently.

Anyway, no matter what one believes, God, no God, purple-headed super-beings ---- read the Sermon on The Mount. Read the parables Jesus told. You don't have to believe in God or Jesus or L Ron Hubbard to see that these are profound insights into the human "being". We can all be good "Samaritans", no matter where we live. There is no proof of God, just like there was no proof of WMD's. But, let the politicos get involved and look what happens.....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I don't really practice any religion. My heart thinks it would be wonderful to have this....everlasting eternal life.....hang out with family and friends forever. My brain, however, tells me to come to grips with my own mortality and get over that silly notion of a heaven and hell.

However, my wife and I send our 7 year old daughter to a private Catholic school, and I love everything about it. The idea that my daughter is also having Jesus Christ indoctrinated into her life, doesn't bother me in the least. The school is rated at the highest in our area for private schools, so that, really, is more important. Even so, I find some strange comfort that she has a "spiritual" side to her life, even though I don't. My wife and her go to church on Sunday, I work in the garden.

What I find to be so silly, are Atheists that feel compelled to remove the word God, or references to God from everyday life. What's the point? If you're an Atheist, the word "God" means nothing to you, so why be so concerned when the word is used, even in a government building.....a school....a courthouse. School children reciting ....."one Nation under God"....is hardly anything to get worked up over, and the same goes with the Ten Commandments on a piece of granite outside a courthouse. The only people that get worked up over this, are people that have some sort of chip on their shoulder.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't keep an eye on Government and the line separating Church and State. Absolutely. Certainly, Bush likes to push that envelope. But this country will never turn into a Theocracy......that notion is so ridiculous.....pretty much impossible......we have enough people with common sense to ever let that happen.

I think I'm smart enough to know when that line is crossed.

A man finds God and becomes a better father, husband, neighbor.
Good for him.
A man finds God and blows up an abortion clinic.
He's a sick bastard.

A man finds God and thinks all abortions should be illegal.
I respect his opinion, but strongly disagree.

A man finds God and denies necessary medical treatment to a child.
A sick bastard.

A man finds God and asks for prayers for a loved one.
I'll try.

A man finds God and condones the stoning death of his own daughter because she was raped.
He's a sick bastard and should be stoned to death himself.


I'm rambling. Time to work.
Just my two cents.


Poe

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Back in March of this year I posted the following on my personal blog:
"Growing up, I was taught that monotheism was the evolutionary culmination of human relgious thought: First there was animism, the childish belief in spirits or lifeforces in everything; then came polytheism, the ancient Greek and Romans' misguided and superstitious belief in many gods and goddesses; finally, with the ancient Hebrews first getting it right, monotheism! Now why having one all-powerful, all-knowing god was preferable to having many not-so-powerful, not-so-all-knowing gods was never really explained fully to my way of thinking, but I excepted the premise. This, I believe, is as good of definition of "faith" as any: Accepting any premise which cannot be verified or quantified, by empirical measurment or experimentation, as true.
(snip)
"I stand by my assertion that Judaism, Christianity and Islam are sick. I also stand by my assertion that the "holy spaces" of those three, great sick religions must be destroyed, not necessarily physically by nuclear weapons, though that would get the message across, but demythologized; leaving these so-called "holy cities" with no more religious significance than the Parthenon in Athens or the ruins of Delphi.
(snip)
"It is past time the human race grew up and cast off these dictatorial and imaginary supreme ones, be they Yahweh, Jehovah or Allah. They've been more trouble to us than they have been worth, and have been the root cause of much hatred, war and suffering over the course of two thousand years."

Were I to take sides in this debate, I'd declare for Hitchens.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Can you imagine? "You rationalized murder!" Oh, DO TELL, Mr. Hitchens. Can you imagine? Spending much of your life working to show the world the horror that is Henry Kissenger, and why? Because he indiscriminately rained murder down on all of southeast asia.

But NOW, it is only the terrorists, only the new viet cong that are murderers. Our bombs, our guns, are not spewing murder to be justified.

It's "justifying murder" to say that a miserable person might be tempted to take up arms in the face of despair. It's the opposite to support America's brutal occupation.

I'm glad Hitchens isn't religious. I'd hate to see him end up in hell.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Interesting, this latest trend of some atheists trying to convince the world that their world view is correct.

Those who are progressive, whether or not they have faith, make more sense to me. In fact, spirituality in general is, to me, a necessary component of my life.

I do, at the same time, find fundamentalism (Christian, atheistic, whatever) to be the most simple-minded approach to life I've ever encountered.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Some comments bring up a non-existent bias against Christianity and towards Islam. I think they mistaken an actively critical viewpoint (in Alternet) against Christians as a tired attempt to crush Christianity, though this is no theological debate. What I see on Alternet, in the context of this Christianity/Islam debate, is more or less the inverse of mainstream news. There Christians, as Christians, hold a favorable position in the eyes of audiences; muslims, as muslims, do not hold this same position, but almost its opposite.

Christopher Hitchens knee-jerks against Islam as if no other public figure is critical of Islam. I can't help but see his reactionary stance in light of Christian radicals who make claims from this country was founded on Christian principles (that we are not following) to that there is an actively critical view of Christians circulating in popular media.

Similarly, Alternet shakes up the status quo about paying attention to women and not men. Misogynist trolls then get up in arms when they notice that, compared to the world outside of Alternet, women are getting more attention, and if that was not bad enough, in ways they do not approve. In the real-world, however, women are with over-whelming regularity treated like less than humans and men receive most if not all the glory of the human condition. Likewise, Christianity is the default mode of religious being our country, and Islam is ominous at best and hated at worst.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"Party of One: a Loner's Manifesto" needs some help. Most of the book is concerned with replacing certain stereotypes ("loners" are crazy, eccentric, persecuted, etc...) with other, more flattering stereotypes ("loner's" are brilliant, more creative, more insightful than "the mob.") what is a loner? a misanthrope? an "introvert"? a solitude-seeker? a "shy" person? someone with social anxiety issues? a genius who needs solitude because they are a genius and they simply must find some way to express themselves to others by being alone? Loner-ism is a spectrum, and I think that most people have a bit of these characteristics within them. Although I typically identify myself as someone who might enjoy being alone more than most people, (and as someone who has spent most of my life coping with social anxiety issues) I was extremely annoyed by this author's constant name-calling "this person is a loner...this person is a non-loner....this person is like us....this person is not like us." the range of human personality is not that simple. unfortunately, to get your book into Barnes and Nobles it's often useful to come up with some absurdly eye-catching and harmfully reductionist thesis and run with it. this book is actually pretty disturbing. the author is clearly insecure about her self-identification as "loner" and goes way to far to over-compensate for it by glorifying herself and her imagined community of loners (of course she lists "the Great Thinkers" and artists of our time and calls them all loners.)

there is absolutely no kind of evidence or serious psychology (although the back cover calls this book "psychology") in this book. not even a remote effort to stand back for a moment and consider to make some half-assed attempt at what we call objectivity. mostly it's the author's journal and it should be taken to the author's therapist where she could work to develop a more realistic perspective on "the outside world" and "other people" and her own self-image.

for all these reasons, this book has found a popular audience because her idea of a "loner" is an easy, seductive and grandiose way to think of yourself as someone special. i'm not saying that it isn't a good thing to develop a positive image of yourself, and that some people aren't more creative and introspective than others. personally i do think there is often a link in our culture and time between "creativity" and introversion....but this is too much, too floppy, too offensive, too romantic to be helpful to anyone who wants to really dig into themselves and examine why they are they way they are, rather than borrowing a stupid label from an attention-seeking book.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Talk about rationalizing murder – Hitchens was one of the most enthusiastic cheerleaders for this hideous Iraq war.

That said, I do agree with him that on the whole, organized religion has been a negative force in our world. However, that doesn’t mean that there’s no such thing as God, or that religion is always a bad thing. For example, I think the world is a much better place for the contributions of the Quakers. And, as others have pointed out, organized religion was a key enabler of our civil rights revolution.

People like Hitchens and Sam Harris bother me as much as the fundamentalists. How can they be so sure that nothing exists beyond what they can currently perceive with their puny physical senses? How can they explain where the “big bang” came from? How can they explain the emergence of conscious life from inert matter, especially in light of the law of entropy? What accounts for the fact that experiments with the minute particles that make up all physical matter, it has been found that one cannot even observe these particles without changing their behavior? Doesn’t this phenomenon jibe with what the sages and prophets have maintained, since long before quantum physics was born, that we are all ONE?

Hitchens holds special contempt for Islam and suicide bombers. This brings to mind the verity that it is easiest to condemn that which we know the least about. Indeed, the strength of our judgements against groups, movements and ideas tends to be in direct proportion to our ignorance of them. This effect is enhanced by a blindness to the sins of our own “side”. Perhaps if Hitchens were a Palestinian under the boot of an illegal and extraordinarily cruel occupation, he might understand the anger and desperation that leads to suicide bombings. (I find it interesting that so many of the neocons are Jews close to Israel, and seem to almost universally have seething contempt for the Palestinians. For his part, Hitchens mother is Jewish). Perhaps Mr. Hitchens would have a greater appreciation of such resentment if he were a citizen of Iran in the early 1950s, when the CIA precipitated the overthrowing of their democratically elected government, and the subsequent installation of the brutal Shah? Maybe if he were a citizen of Saudi Arabia or one of the other Arab countries whose boundaries were drawn by Western powers, and whose kleptocratic, authoritarian ruling elites were imposed by Western countries, he might be able to muster some sort empathy for these people? I suppose if he were Sunni in Iraq, mindful of U.S. support of the Baathists and Saddam Hussein over many years, and aware of the hypocrisy of Saddam’s regime being overthrown for alleged possession – and previous usage blessed at the time by the U.S. - of weapons willingly provided (the precursors and much of the technology to transform them into weapons, anyways) by the U.S. and her allies (and known to be well past their useful shelf life), he possibly would have some understanding of the outrage that can result in suicide bombings? Especially if he then had to live under an occupation by terrified, confused, trigger-happy and increasingly angry American troops, one third of whom polls show support torture of Iraqi citizens.

If Hitchens is the poster boy for the enlightenment one achieves without religious baggage, and Hedges – author of the magnificent antiwar classic, “War is a Force that Gives Us Meaning” – is the archetype of man shackled by primitive religion, I’ll go with Hedges, thank you very much.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

My overall impression of the "debate" and its top billing here today on Alternet is "sophomoric confusion." These two men are carrying on in public because this is how they make their living. Ironically, Rufus has written a book about the benefits of being a "loner." These junior high performances are entertaining, I suppose, but they distract from the real adult work that needs to be done, like speak truth to power. Religion is part of evolving truth, as wawa alluded to with the four evolutionary stages of Peck. Money masters and their minions use religion, politics, media, sex and anything else they can get ahold of to further their agenda.

Religion's forte is story telling with all kinds of motives from the sublime to the sick. These two debaters do the same with their stories which seque from their unstated religion which could be a religion of no religion like atheism. To segue Rufus, religion is a deep personal "loner" experience of reality which may or may not happen in a group. Religion is used by evil doers and do gooders alike.

I happened to be reading the gospel of John last night where he keeps referring to his father as the source of authority. It struck me how these "literary" passages show how patriarchy stole love and used it for their purposes. The male Jesus and his father become the be all and end all in this "love" gospel. The reality of love which is primarily a womam's virtue and culture was simply co-opted for power purposes.

The same thing happens with events like this debate. Two patriarchal males take up all the psychic space getting their needs for attention and money met. We all get drawn in because after 6000 years of patriarchal brainwashing, we know of no other real alternative. There is one, of course, but it is almost invisible in this war mongering pale male culture.

The Red Brown and Blue Party is a party of one which correlates with Rufus' "loner" theory. It supports The Lover Government. The red, brown and blue flag is a world flag. Red is for the earth's and people's blood; brown is because we all have brown skins (earth and people); and blue because earth and people live under a blue sky. The Lover is also known as Godus because of the close love relation of Goddess and Us.

The sophomoric debating which this article reports misses the whole point of original religion which means to "tie back" into realilty. That reality which The Lover personifies is attacked by the patriarchic mindset which is endemic in our culture. A womam's consciousness (in female or male bodies) just smiles like the Mona Lisa at these boymen talking heads who know nothing about real religion. Her eyes get teary when she thinks of the Christian and Muslim imams with their holy books and hollow guns, mirror images of each other. The holy war began 6000 years ago when men attacked love. It still rages on the debating and killing fields.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

He's wittier than O'Reilly, which makes him sometimes entertaining, but like O'Reilly his number one point is always "I'm right, and everyone else is not only wrong, but spectacularly, transcendently wrong, moronic, and morally suspect." It doesn't matter if he's talking about the imagined merits of the Iraq war, why "women aren't funny," or why religion is a force of pure evil.

What puzzles me about both Hitchens and Dawkins is how they can declare that religion is a 100 percent human invention -- which is probably true -- and then blame religion for all human evils as if it is some independent mystical force that can be magically eradicated, and then enlightenment will follow.

Which makes their "atheism" remarkably religious in nature.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The description of the Berkeley event sounds more like wide-world of wrestling match than a debate. Clever nonsense. Crowds shouting.

How can one even begin to talk about religion without some agreement as to what is the subject? Comments about the virtues or vices of "organized" religion (with their business economies, paid leadership) may have nothing to do with the beliefs that most people understand to be the heart of their own understanding of "religion."

Yes, those are not easily distinguished. Yet without making clear the limits of the discussion, the result is people talking past each other. In which case, there may well be some comments on both sides that could form the basis for a meaningful exchange but get ignored.

Whatever draws a crowd seems to be all that matters. For me, that is about as far away from what I mean by "religion" as you can get. Life is not a popularity contest, a horse race, or an election. It's a chance to grow up. I couldn't find much of that in this piece of journalism. Whatever gets you published, right?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hitchins, with his bomb-throwing bombast, posturing, rudeness and insults is still better at speaking truth than Hedges. Hitchens speaks forcefully against the evil done in God's name and rightly diagnoses fundamentalist Islam as the (currently) most virulently diseased variety of mindlessly murdering "faith" on the planet. For that, he is predictably villainized, but he shouldn't be: He knows, as do all thinking people, that any faith regimented, robbed of its meaning, lashed to the beast of war and merchandise, is evil, Christianity no lesss than any other. (Indeed, Christ warned such hypcrites to "Depart, I never knew thee." He stood in opposition to the powerful who so often co-opt and make a fraud of Christianity.)

Hedges is essentially forced in this debate to feebly protest that he hates organized religion as much as Hitchens. Not so: He hates the absolutes of faith, because they are not convenient to his world view. He believes, "God is better understood as a verb than as a noun...God is a process."

Divinity degree or no, Hedges, with that statement, conveniently tosses out true identity of the God of Moses, Mohammed and Christ: "I AM." Like it or not, that is the God to whom the faithful of these faiths flock. Not some "process" we can label, box and produce when convenient.

The article states that Hedges supports, "religious ritual and belief in the supernatural..." True. He worships, "the form of Godliness, but denying the power thereof," about which the Bible speaks. No wonder he should be, "...denounced as a callow hypocrite by a world-famous colleague who might once have agreed with him on everything."

Hedges sums up his disgust in one sentence: "At least we knew where we were," he mused. "Now it's all relative. It's made up a la carte and cherry-picked." He advocates absolutes. He is right. Sometimes stuff stinks on ice, and no amount of yack will make the stench smell sweet.

This was not a battle of faith vs. athiesm. This was a muddle of pro-forma, empty religiosity versus bitter, angry, world-weary skepticism, generating a little heat an no light at all.

That said, of the two men, the "athiest" is following a clearer path of thruth than the "defender of the faith" ever dreamed of walking. Too bad his insight is causing him so much despair and anger. He is, unfortunately, seeing only that part of the truth which he wills. There is so much more.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

People congregating at a house of worship (take your pick)-a joyous communion of like-minded individuals voicing their praise of a diety and their love for one another. All, very peaceful and serene with everyone in his/her finest attire paying rapt attention to the sermon and its "lessons". This is how it's portrayed in books, movies, and elsewhere. Why, then do the worshipers go forth and go right ahead with their stupidity, ignorance, hate, and intolerance as if the event never occurred? Not a problem; there's always NEXT week to reinforce what was preached last time. That'll fix it, only it doesn't. So, what's the truth behind the pious facade? Could it be that some people have an inborn desire to control others and make them do their bidding, regardless of the consequences, and those who consent to be controlled elevate the controllers to the status of demigods, immune to any criticism? Think about the bloodstained history of the major religions throughout the existence of
"civilization", which has been anything but civil. Then, think about the current, dreadful threat to our very existence, brought about by lunatics with modern weapons, who insist that it's their way or the highway(death & destruction). What positive result have the oratory, dogmas, and doctrines of the major theistic belief systems brought about. What benefits have accrued so far? Precious few, it seems.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It'd be far more interesting to look at eastern religions, who have already debated this topic for centuries - what do you mean by belief, anyway? Do you believe in the sun, for example? How about atoms? You can't see atoms, but scientists tell you that they are real - so is it an article of faith to believe in atoms? What an asinine debate.

The fact is that all forms of religion, when brought into the political arena, are just mind control strategies for getting a bunch of followers to support a given political agenda. The founders of the country were wise enough to have figured this out, which is why they wrote the separation of Church and State into the Constitution.

Believe what you want to believe, but keep it out of politics and government and law and science.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

My basic problem with religion and faith is that we really will never know if there is a God for sure until the day we die. Then and only then will the "truth" be made aware to us.

In that light, I think it important that we study the religions of the world in a more philisophical manner, as a study of the human condition, rather than as definitive history texts.

I also believe that the problem isn't necessarily the religions of the world that are the problem. It is the interpretation of the religion by the powers that rule(governments) at that particular time in history. We can only hope that one day, we'll have leaders who can look at the texts of the religions of the world and find peace and understanding within the pages rather than devisiveness and the old I'm going to heaven because I believe this and your going to hell because you believe that.

It still all boils down to one thing. Are you a good human (kind, caring, productive, considerate, peaceful) or not? If you're good, I would think that anyones God would be happy to have you.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Monitor is right. Binary world views are dangerous, our country is controlled by giant corporations and the super rich. With our congress so nearly evenly divided it is easy for them to control a few truly corrupt congressmen, and all of them needing to raise enormous amounts of money to win their elections.

The Democratic and Republican Parties are both corrupt and will remain so until we, the grassroots demand Public Campaign Financing.

Every one of us is different, so why should we have only two viable choices when it comes to presidential candidates.?

We might even look at the French election system, along with Instant Runoff. Howard Dean has some very good ideas on reform. Check them out.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I have heard versions of this thought before: A drunk wakes up sober. A religion person wakes up and is still delusional.

A writer trying to invalidate someone because of their drinking habits consequently invalidates themselves.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Being an atheist I am personally very upset when reading AlterNet. AlterNet writers and readers have double standards when it comes to criticizing fundamentalist religion. The Christian Right is venomously criticised and ridiculed at every turn. When it comes to Islam and Islamism there is apologies and silence. What is the difference between conservative family values within the Christian Right and mainstream Islam? In fact none! Mainstream Islam and the Christian Right share 90 % of all values. So why do we not with equal venom criticise Islam as we criticise the Christian Right. Talk about double standards!

But let me say this again there exist moderate Moslems but there exist no moderate Islam. There exist super liberal Christian theology groups, there are even whole schools of thought that interpret Christianity in a liberal way. Within Islam there exists no such thing. Secular Moslems are bad Moslems. Until a liberal school of thought is implemented as a complement the existing 5 schools of thought within Islam, liberal Islam does not exist. It is based on other factors but not upon Moslem doctrine. This is why I have grave difficulties to accept Islam at any level until it has had its reformation. I accept the Christian Left because the accept my right not to believe and their interfere in my way of living is acceptable. However neither the Christian Right nor Islam accepts me and the wish to control my life at all level, they want their morals to be mine. Islam and the Christian Right are intolerant religious interpretations.

How can progressives not criticise fundamentalist views wherever they come from? To criticise religious fundamentalism in all its forms is the moral obligation of all who believe in democracy. Today Islamism is a totalitarian, imperialistic religious, and political doctrine which is incompatible with Western civilisation. To combat its spread, is to defend liberal democracy, secular society, gender equality and the individual freedoms of both muslims and non-muslims.

How can we not criticise a regions that does not accept Individual Human Rights, that accept misogyny, advocates violence and believes that all men must subjugate under one god or perish.

There should be no difference whether their religion is Christian or Moslem it must be fought and criticized.

I cannot for my life understand apologist such as Chris Hedges but then again I have never understood the Christian Left, its double standards. Criticising the West for infringements of Human rights and accepting them elsewhere.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

....the problem with atheists is their absolute conviction god does not exist...where's the proof? In the end, both theists and atheists are wrong....agnostics on the other hand, possess the only scientific positioning....proof first, decision second...until that time, get lost......hitchens is just a bitter bastard with the gift of gab, getting rich, and having the time of his life.....although he is right that deity-based religions are humanities number one enemy, he wont be successful converting any fence sitters here in the US because christianity has been co-oped by liberals who have managed to place a modern, benevolent face on this suicidal, anti-life belief system....as nietzsche said, "it is not their love of man, but their impotence of their love of man, that keeps the christians of today from burning us"...hitchens must acknowledge, and then resolve the good press liberal christians get before we can begin to do what the french did (with thomas paines help) during their revolution.....burn their churches down and execute their leaders for acts of treason against the human race......

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

hitchens has been compared to judas, ask sydney blumenthal, who he handily betrayed while their children played together. hitchens is identifed with the "unbelievers?" not when it comes to the catastophe in iraq. hitchens is a spiritual agnostic, and a bush "believer."

hedges is defending a liberal/progressive church,which must ward off the right wing fascist chistian movement. the corporte media hates progressive christians.. and for very good reason... they don't just criticise a corporate capitalist system.. they say its immoral. usury anyone?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Given Mr. Hitchens' support of the Palestinian cause I doubt he would be welcome in the Israel-is-always-right "neocon club". As stated in prior posts, he is otherwise in my view a fierce progressive/libertarian. I have to admit, though, his unabashed support for the Iraq War lost me although he supported the war not because he believed Saddam had anything to do with 9/11 or had WMD. He is obviously not shy to take controversial positions and like anyone, he is not always "perfect".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This much is true no matter what the prevailing idiocy may be..

Those nations and systems which proclaimed themselves to be Atheist and or banned religion and religious practice have caused the deaths of so many more millions millions than all the wars stupidly fought over religion that the only conclusion is that Hitchens, is talking out his ass..!

Simple as that..!

When the state is the supreme arbiter of rights, then you will soon no longer have any rights..!

Jefferson said: "I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility for every tyranny over the mind of man..!"

Me too..!

Let's focus on Impeaching Bush and saving the Republic before he evokes a "catastrophic emergency" and becomes full fledged Dictator under NSPD-51 and HSPD-20..signed May 9th 2007..

That's more important the the dry drunk ravings of Christopher Hitchens..!


TJ..

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

How can Mr. Hitchens have made the long walk back from leaps of faith, if you will, that's required to 'cure' oneself of religious delusions, and yet argued such an unreasoned and ill-thought out position on global terrorism? It seems he has succumbed to the arguments of the Bush team, who have just about succeeded in handing us the successor to the Cold War - the "War on Terrorism", because they have succeeded in convincing enough gullible and morally nebulous people like Hitchens of its necessity. We're just about stuck fighting this war on the global stage for the forseeable future, but no one knows what shape the battles will take. We only know that increasing numbers of innocent American civilians will be involved. This is alarming, but not, to one who looks with an unprejudiced eye, unexpected nor undeserved. America has been exporting war and force of arms as a mainstay of foreign policy ever since its inception as a rag-tag group barely hanging onto life in Virginia in the 17th century. There are many, many epsodes in our history indicating that the US has one of the most arrogant, least moral foreign policies ever seen on the world stage.

Of course, such a thing as a war on terror cannot exist, except in a dreamer's world. One cannot fight a war on terrorism, because terrorism is a concept, dependent on another conceptualization, the state of terror. One cannot kill ideas. In fact, one could argue that attempting to kill ideas through killing their proponents only serves to perpetuate them. Many new enemies have been created by US for itself through military acts which have cost the lives and homes of innocents by the hundreds of thousands in many locations worldwide.

Nor should one expect to end terror by spreading it throughout the world. Modern day Nostradamuses have predicted the threat of global terrorism. They did not predict, that acts of terror would be perpetrated exclusively by Muslims or Muslim groups. Let us not forget acts of terror by the thousand during America's first 230+ years, committed by her government in the name of an uninformed public which was spread out and engaged in carving out a white man's continent, the many acts of subterfuge, sabotage, coup de tat, and covert crimes committed in the name of national security, and also the infamous domestic acts of terror committed both by the US government upon its own, at Ruby Ridge and Waco, in the streets of Los Angeles, Detroit and Chicago during the mid 20th century, and the deluded acts of a neo-nazi white supremicist, Timothy McVeigh, or the enraged revenge for their ostracism exacted by the perpetrators of the Columbine incident. It seems we bear some responsibility for the development of concepts and techniques under the heading "Terrorism".

Not to say that my neighbors deserve to be beheaded for living oblivious to human suffering in this land of milk and honey. They bear only the guilt of taking advantage of a sweet deal. Anyone would do the same, and I continue to do so. And once again, Rome's strong core becomes fat and weak.

Yes, there are many faults in Hitchens' call to arms, not all of them merely historical or moral. In reading about this debate, I must say if Hitchens intends to stand behind his fearful arguments, he'd best have his clothes on. His cheesy views are more hole than cheese, and we will all be crawling in holes unless we find a way to appreciate that others in the world have the same right to live here (meaning 'on earth') as we do. By succumbing to fear, and signing up to the opinion that terrorism can be eradicated by force of arms, Hitchens has removed himself from at least one category of thinkers and writers: those respected by me.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Say the word "god" and the way extreme emotion takes over is astounding. And whether there is or is not a god or gods becomes a much less interesting question than why so many people invest so much emotion in what others believe or don't believe.

Whatever one's beliefs or disbeliefs in the spiritual realm, it would be a wonderfully refreshing experience to simply have everyone in the world for, say, one month deal with life without invoking, denying, naming, cursing, pleading with, blaming, or even thinking of a deity or the lack thereof. With all that energy to channel into other courses, think of what could be accomplished! And a pleasing side effect might be the final understanding of whether humans need or should need a deity or deities.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Let's face it. Probably 90% of the population of this world (or more) is Catholic, protestant, baptist, muslim, hindu, buddhist, mormon, or whatever, simply because of where they were born and who their parents are. There are very few who actually study the issue and come up with a decision of which faith, or lack thereof, makes the most sense to them.

If the Grand Ayatollah Khomeni (sp) were born to Sandy and Bert johnson of Cleveland, I do believe his religious beliefs would be different than they are now.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's more like reasonable vs. unreasonable. Or people who have faith in their own eyes vs. faith in other people's fantasies.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'm delighted that Mr Hitchins has finally joined the fight for reality and reason in National and International affairs.
Religion is primitive groupthink and may destroy all of us if we don't wise up.
The 9/11 whackjobs who took down the WTC were devoutly religious. The believed every word in the Koran unquestioningly.
They expected to go to paradise after their heroic martydom.
But WE know better dont we? They were fools. And they are now dust.
Faith is for Fools.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

After reading the comments on this thread, I’m amazed by how many so-called liberals and progressives want us to pull of Iraq yet support Hitchens who wants Gulf War 2 to continue.

Has the hatred of religion you share with Hitchens blinded you that much?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe
in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why
you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will
understand why I dismiss yours.”

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Imagine a translucent sheet of plexiglas, and shining
up (projected) through the plexiglas is an image of an
8x8 chessboard, and on that apparent chessboard, there
are chessmen/pieces, arranged into a mind-bogglingly
difficult chess composition --- White to move and get
to heaven in 22 moves.

Now, go to the wall and pull the plug on the light
source that's projecting the 8x8 grid onto/through the
plexiglas, so that there's just a blank sheet of
plexiglas, with a bunch of figurines sitting on its
surface in various attitudes to each other which no
longer have any schema to them. There is no game, no
study, no thought-up problem. It's not AntiChess. It's
just Not-Chess. On that board, there is no chess. The
figurines just decided that they don't want to play
the game any more; they just want to be who they are
and do what they do.

That's the "a-" in atheism. They're not against the
game --- there just is no game. All there is is what
is.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Wrote Hitchens about Gulf War 2 in 2005, “If the great effort to remake Iraq as a demilitarized federal and secular democracy should fail or be defeated, I shall lose sleep for the rest of my life in reproaching myself for doing too little. But at least I shall have the comfort of not having offered, so far as I can recall, any word or deed that contributed to a defeat.”

Apparently Hitchens believes whipping up hatred for Muslims will contribute to a victory in Iraq. That’s what Israel thought when it went after Hezbollah in Lebanon.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

1) If church was like it is in the Blue Brothers, with James Brown as preacher, I'd be first in line every Sunday.

2) Religion can be fun, - which brings up a funny bumper sticker, "Who took the fun out of fundamentalism?"

3) Having faith in science is just like having faith in religion.

4) As far as hatred of religion goes, remember the pithy saying - "Love the sinner, hate the sin" (apparently it's the other way round for some folks)

5) Fer chris sake, lighten up. This kind of religious intolerance is what leads to Hindu mobs hacking up trains full of Muslim pilgrims after a Hindu temple is set on fire by some fanatic Islamicists pissed off about some imagined slight to Muslims by Hindus in some godforsaken hellhole somewhere in India... what's next? Mobs of atheists and fundamentalists at each other's throats with machetes and Molotov cocktails?

Someone tell me the answer to Rodney King's question:

"Why can't we all just.. get along?"

(My answer is that greedy power-mad psychotics view religion as a path to power and wealth... or they view politics as a path to power and wealth - face it folks, our commen ancestor with chimpanzees wasn't THAT far in the past. Alpha males and dominance and all that...)

P.S. Why can't I join the Peyote Church, anyway? Talk about religious repression!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Back during the time of the Inquisition, thousands were killed for alleged heresey against Christianity. Read just the old testament about smiting your (and presumbably God's) enemies or the Commandant about not having any other God's but the so-called one God, and what do you get? The easy conclusion that non-believers, non-Christians can be done away with. As for Jewish beliefts, look at the Iraeli's now, many of them have no qualms about taking even more land in the Middle East. After all, didn't God give it to them in the Old Testament. It goes on and on. Fundamental Christianity and Judaism can be seen to support violence and hate just as much as fundamentalist Islam does. The difference between the societies and cultures is only in the degree of secularization. Let the 700 club run America, and the homosexuals, "non-believers," atheists, etc., they would all be burned at the stake.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

In the post-9/11 world, it is important for us all to reconsider how dangerous religion really is. Here in the West, you probably can spend your entire life without running into one person who really believes in religion. Sure, some people say they believe in religion in a garden-variety way, but none of those people have the kind of faith in 72 post-mortem virgins that makes it so easy to justify mass murder. However, religion, as crazy as it sounds, is taken seriously in other parts of the world.

Our only hope, or at least our best hope, is to wake up these delusional creatures before they kill us all. And our best strategy is to point out the lunacy of all religious persuasions, or we really won't have any way to explain to them why they are wrong. The new atheism is not an angry one, it is a hopeful one. We wish to avert the dreaded "clash of civilizations." Hitchens is a prophet and a brave soul.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

my feeling is that it hardly matters who's correct about god vs. no god. fundamentally it is unprovable. what matters is how people treat each other because of these beliefs. i believe in tolerence towards others beliefs even if i personally think they are crazy. what bothers me is when people of any belief system persecute others because of differing beliefs. currently the more intolerant belief system appears in my opinion to be religious bigots of the christian and islam variety. on the other hand it has been the other way around in other recent examples such as soviet communism's persecution of religion. it goes on and on ad nauseum. tolerence is not difficult to imagine. it does take will power to maintain it in the face of persecution. personally i think organized religion robs people of liberty and spirit, but that is my view. if someone wants to go to church what difference should it make to me? on the other hand if some religious figure condemns me as evil because i don't believe the same i do have a problem with that. but it does not require me to hate him/her back. what possible good can come of more hate. instead i politely but firmly tell him/her i'm not interested in their religion and suggest they might be happier about themselves if they concentrate on being a tolerant, compassionate, loving person. so far i haven't been physically threatened because of this but if it happened i believe defense is acceptable. but the trick is not to create intolerence in the first place. it is difficult to be tolerant but it really it is the only sane option.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

i am so very tired of the argument that religion has made us better, more civil. i am sick to death of it. usually foisted upon me by apologists for religion. and i have to say i am with hitchens,no matter how loathesome he may appear. or how shocked i am say it. he makes some sense. where in the world are the muslim moderates? do they exist, can they exist when in islam its self there has always been war between those who are "totalitarian" in their views and those who are considered heterodox. anyone remember al Hallaj?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This debate has little to do with whether there is or is not a god or what is falsifiable. It has to do with the fact that people seek to and do tell me what I can and cannot do based on their religion (that I am not part of). And that people use religion as an excuse for harmful actions. It’s about bad behavior and controlling behavior. So stand down christian soldiers, reign in your friends, take your jesus and go home, and keep it at home until somebody bothers you and tries to tell you what to do in your personal life. this applies to muslims as well.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

know better than to get into the argument in the first place. Hell, I can't even handle reading any more of this.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

..both racist...that's the best you all got??? :O)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hitchens should be that British judge on American Idol!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hitchens says religion is all cherry-picked and the crowd cheered...but religion, if it is to be taken seriously, has to be cherry picked because the prophets that are usually spoken of--Christ, Mohammed--did not set up organized religions. So, sure, sects are man-made. But the true purpose of religion is not so we can say we're part of "this" belief system. It's to help us progress spiritually. That's why people, at their best, pray, meditate, reflect, serve others, act kindly and generously, and strive to become a sort of mirror of the divine.

All this is backed up by what Christ said--God is a spirit and should be worshipped in spirit. God can not be found ONLY in a book, holy though it may be. A spirit is elusive. The spirit of God is relative to the day in which we live.

It is this spirit of the day--this truth--that we should be searching for. I, for one, believe part of this truth is this: superstitious beliefs about the virgin birth and miracles and "my religion is best" are much less important than the lessons found in each religion's mythology. This reversal of priorities is actually what each prophet spoke of.

Also, if Hitchens would actually study Islam with an unsullied mind, he'd find reasons for why some radical Muslims have gone so far astray. Islamic history and context do not justify suicide bombings; they only let us understand that literalism and egotism are the true deep-rooted enemies. And I'm not sure anyone has proposed a way to win this war.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

to get god to visit me? Tell me what the words are and I'll say them and wait for god to visit...should I get my camera ready? This will definitely be better than a visit from Grandma!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Old tribal religions consisted mainly in believing bad weather, hunting, fishing and agricultural crops were due to their gods punishing them for having behaved in ways they had better not. And good ones on the other side bonuses for good behavior. Judged against the (scientific) knowledge of the time/tribes this thinking is logically OK.

Judged against OUR (scientific) knowledge there is hardly any present religion that rightly can say the same. And certainly not the 3 closely related ones originated in the Mid-East some 2-3 thousand years ago.

Those 3 might have been logically OK when invented, but hopelessly not so NOW. Today very few will claim our planet and life on it was created some 3-4 K years ago in a 6 x 24 hour working session. And few will claim man being a creature completely different and unrelated to the rest of the animal world. Many find it hard to understand how the first human couple on earth could have sons marrying foreign (UFO?) women. Quite a few will even find it logically impossible that a god supposed to be all-knowing, all-mighty and all-good, could create either the living hell our planet is most of the time for most of its inhabitants (including or excluding man) or an eternal punishment for those who refused to believe in him.

Logically he must necessarily either be all-knowing and all-mighty and anything but all-good. Or all-good and anything but all-mighty and all-knowing.

So believers and non-believers may both claim Possibility does not rule out their view. But non-believers surely have Probability on their side.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Just like with the extraterrestrials, says my mind.

Does this single male God exist? If he doesn't come right out and appear and say what is really going on, then to me it doesn't matter that much. Religious people tell me I'll miss out on something. If God exists and sees what I'm trying earnestly to do to keep myself and my wife in some kind of happy existence from day to day... if he has a sense of humor he'll forgive me for honest mistakes, including the lack of vision to sense him or any begotten offspring. If he is humorless, then he is no different from the one from whom he is putatively saving me. Because without a body, humor is the only sweetness and light, and any burning or gnashing or rending comes from its lack.

That is why, though I veer far more toward atheism by nature, I cannot hitch my wagon to Hitchens, whose only humor I've heard so far is of the most venomous and derisive variety. At least the Revolutionary Communist Bob Avakian can say something that brings a warm giggle to the heart. Both he and Hitchens would be happy to personally draw and quarter a theocrat no doubt, but I see something positive going forward out of Avakian that I have yet to sense from Hitchens.

I am married to a mostly lapsed Catholic who still feels some sense of a God. I don't sense it myself, but she has said she sees my desire to explore and to think about possibilities in the great areas of the unknown where satisfying explanations come neither from belief nor nonbelief. She says she wouldn't have married me if I simply thought that she and everyone like her was just a "blinkered Philistine" to borrow from a John Cleese skit on Monty Python. In the end, again, I come down to feeling that whether someone believes in something I don't sense doesn't matter - it is what they do that matters.

Avakian himself says on his DVD set, A Chinese Christian woman who prayed often started praying less when the Maoists took over. "Because they are encouraging you to pray less?" she was asked. "No, because under the Communists, so many things I prayed for came true."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Seems like a silly question but from years of practical experinec, I find that the co-called scientific, rationally based atheiets when they are honest admit that even IF he visited them, it could be an allusion. So, NOT beleiveing in a Heavenly Father is simply a faith based apparition.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'm sick of people equating explanations and excuses. To suggest that suicide bombings are motivated on a personal level by economic desperation, as doe Hedges here, or on a political level by anger at U.S. policy in the Middle East, as Ron Paul did in the recent Republican Presidential debate, is not to mitigate the severity or heinousness of the crimes in question. The rationale for denying motivations and explanations, though, is obvious -- it means that the only response to terrorism is to apprehend or kill the terrorists; it is not our responsibility to explore the possibility of affecting root causes. It also allows the ludicrous claim that we fight them over there so we do not have to fight them over here, as if our very presence over there were not a contributing factor to their hostility.

I'd expect someone like Christopher Hitchens to be less prone to such obvious nonsense.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I've been reading alot of the posts here and the only conclusion I've realy been able to come to is this:

Fundamentalist religionists : holier-than-thou b%$tards!
Fundamentalist atheists : smarter-than-thou b%$tards!

Both so convinced of their own superiority, spiritual or intellectual, they can't wait to crap all over their opposite and twin to demonstrate for the watching public the might of their egos, and accidently how alike they are. And both are just as dangerous.

Yes Torquemada was a Catholic, Hasan ibn Sabah a Muslim, Kissinger a Jew. Well Stalin, Pol Pot and Hitler were atheists - where's the difference? I think alot of people here need to realise they don't know everything.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I am a proud atheist.

I appreciate that atheism is now getting a newfound interest by many people -- not the least because of books written by some incredibly decent and thoughtful scholars like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris.

But Hitchins -- this guy is a belligerent, sensationalistic, opportunist. And a disingenuous one at that.

He uses his non-belief in a "God" simply as a weapon against those he hates. He's not arguing the virtues of atheism, he is merely using the idea to promote his own religion and god -- himself.

In doing so, Hitchins demeans the ethics of true atheists and he provides fuel for the fires of religious extremists of all stripes who believe that atheists cannot have ethics without a belief in "God."

He comes off as a drunken self-possessed hater -- as extreme as the religious believers he so detests. As a well-adjusted atheist I find Hitchins' association with my chosen philosophy offensive.

Sure, I get angry about the use of religion as a social tool. But I consider myself beyond that particular religious instrument of torture called "intimidation." Perhaps Hitchins is actually a true believer but he is so unhinged about others success in dumbing folks down with religion that he has chosen to trash all of them -- leaving no one standing but himself where he will become the new "messiah."

"Messiah" of hate, that is.

No, Hitchins doesn't represent MY atheism. I believe in no 'Gods" -- including him!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I don't care whether Baal or Satan worshipers are feeding babies to a flaming statue of a Bull in order to placate their gods in hopes of a good hunt or harvest, or whether fifty guys in Armani are sitting around a board room discussing how a nice little war would mean a rise in profits across the board, whether through seizure of the natural resources or no-bid contracts to 'rebuild' (loot?) during and after the war (to name but two obvious rackets). Human sacrifice applies primarily to those whose prime directive is PROFIT. Children still die, or are trained in the art of war. It is all the same to me.

I do know this. God is irrelevant to the reasons mankind commits murder or oppression. In fact, most conflicts which allege the blessing of God for their murders have to do quite a dance around their own scriptures (and constitutions) to justify them. The simple are easily led whenever 'faith' takes a higher place than reason. And at this moment nothing requires more blood or faith than the U.S. Dollar.

You name the conflict, and I'll find the profit motive. Mammon (greed or economic ideology) wins every time, and if we're worried about murderous ideologies, this one tops the list.

It is bigotry for fundamentalist atheists, who hold to a belief system like any other, to blame religion as the source of all man's ills. NO human on earth has proven every single assumption they hold to be true. ANY ideology (and all of us have one) which chooses violence over reason is bigotry, and I think it can be called 'religion' as well. We all have beliefs based largely on assumptions.

Hitchins betrays his fundamentalist bigotry, and his willful denial of reason in favor of murder. I used to respect him.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

He's got a bully boy exterior and a cowardly interior. Like a Libertarian Bill O'Reilly. I don't know why anybody even promotes this nonsense.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

He's got a bully boy exterior and a cowardly interior. Like a Libertarian Bill O'Reilly. I don't know why anybody even promotes this nonsense.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Dear Anneli,

Greetings from Australia. A stimulating and well-written article. However, I don't know that Christopher Hitchens can really be called a neo-con. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Hitchens )

Hitchens, however, always a man of strong opinions and firmly on the Left, has disappointed many of us with his stance on Iraq and with his fraternizing with neo-cons. That much I agree with. I think he makes some good points, even about the dangers inherent in even moderate Islam, but I think he takes his views into the realm of paranoia, or xenophobia at least.

The hot air he blows about the dangers of Islam could float a lot of peace balloons over the Muslim world from Arabia to Indonesia.

Pip

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You don’t have to read all the Koran in order to evaluate Islam -- just a bit of it:

* Kill non-believers-> Koran IV.89
* Cast terror in the hearts, smite the neck and cut fingertips of unbelievers-> Koran VIII.12;
* Smite the neck of unbelievers-> Koran XLVII.4;
* Severe Punishment for atheists-> Koran X.4 ; V.10 ; V.86;
* Severe Punishment for non-believers-> Koran XXII.19-22 ; LXXII.23, XCVIII.6;
* Punishing for rejecting faith-> Koran III.91;
* Sadistic punishments-> KoranLVI.42-43;
* Punishment for apostates-> Koran XVI.106 ; III.86-88 ; III.90 ; IV.137.

Is it bigoted to cherrypick the Koran like this? I think not. Analogies don’t prove anything but they are illustrative. Think of a soup that you know contains potassium cyanide. You don’t need to care about the other ingredients. You don’t need to care about what is in other soups. The soup is poison. In a parallel way, Islam is poison.

You can’t take out the nasty bits, believe in the rest, and still be a Moslem. Any Moslem can confirm this. As has been pointed out, there are moderate Moslems (who know not to ask too many questions). But their personal selection of what to follow is not Islam and they would not admit even to themselves that they would edit the holy book – not if they don’t want to end up under a heap of stones or left bleeding in a street somewhere. Islam is the Koran and the Hadiths. The lot.

To appreciate how this poison affects people’s rights, think Taliban (and Northern Alliance) stonings, think Salman Rushdie, think Taslima Nasreen, think Theo van Gogh, think Ayaan Hirsi Ali, think “Ibn Warraq”, think millions of women who are slaves in their husbands’ homes and made to wear body bags when out, think “honour” killings of women, think religious police, think laws banning apostasy, think the 14-year-old kid who was sentenced to a lashing in Nigeria because she was raped and became pregnant – sentenced because Nigeria had given Islamic sharia courts the power to decide.

To tolerate Islam and those who enforce it is about as liberal or “left” as tolerating fascism and those who enforce that.

Give any religion whatsoever the power to impose its will and you will see what that religion is made of. Christianity? It had its turn for centuries and stood before history in all its glory – witch burnings, ecclesiastical courts and all, right up to the support for fascist regimes in Europe and then Latin America – to say nothing of what the Christian soldiers did to the inhabitants – under the Cross of Jesus -- when they first came ashore there.

And as for Judaism – simply read Haifa University political scientist Ilan Pappe’s closely documented “The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine” for the unfolding of the “chosen people” myth.

Support for the rape of Iraq has marked Hitchens for all time as a war criminal, but his assault on religion is based on mountains of demonstrable truth.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

As long as religion chooses to keep itself in the public realm, it should be open to the fiercest possible criticism - from both historians and scientists and the general public of sceptics and doubters.

As long as religion chooses to make claims about the nature of the universe and its origins - it should be open to the same rigorous checks that science is constantly exposed to.

Religious apologists can simply retreat to the "faith" defence and just be honest that all they have is simply credulity and ignorance (occasionally wilful) and stop pretending that their claims of virgin births or visitations from angels have no grounding in reality or history. All the attempts to square the circle have constantly failed and the movement of goal posts and bullying and talk about hell and eternal punishment is beginning to sound ridiculous and laughable.

Religion fails on every count when it comes to contact with the reality of how the world operates. Its claims are simply NOT TRUE and all attempts to pass off the more outrageous parts with the "metaphor" defence only leave us sceptics cold.

How ironic that after millennia of persecution by the religious establishment, it is they who are asking acceptance and (even more baffling) respect.

That is the basic point that these so-called "New Atheists" are trying to make.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]