Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Hitchens vs. Hedges; Atheist vs. Believer Clash Ignites Audience

By Anneli Rufus, AlterNet. Posted May 29, 2007.


Christopher Hitchens debated Chris Hedges in a battle of wits and faith over the meaning of religion in our lives and politics today.
052907story

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Anneli Rufus

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

Visualize this spectacle: a debate between a neocon and a progressive. The subject is religion. One of them is there to defend religion, to praise God, to cheerlead for even the most devout. The other -- his opponent -- is an atheist. He skewers deities and those who follow deities. He calls them evil. Toxic. Childish. He mocks doctrine. Railing that the devout want to kill us and control the world, he is on a mission, as it were, to vanquish missions. You'd expect the liberal to be the atheist and the neocon to vouch for the devout. No-brainer, right? Well, no.

As Christopher Hitchens debated Chris Hedges in a Berkeley auditorium last Thursday night, it was Hedges who praised the pious. And it was 9/11-neocon Hitchens who railed against "Abrahamic man-made filthy propaganda," proclaiming that "human emancipation begins when this nonsense ends."

Both men are the authors of brand-new books, both of which share a basic premise. Truthdig columnist Hedges, who won an Amnesty International Global Award for Human Rights in Journalism five years ago for his New York Times reportage on terrorism, has just published American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America (Free Press, 2007, $25). Hitchens' latest is God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything (Twelve, $24.95), its title saucily skewering the English translation of Allahu Akbar.

While in American Fascists, Hedges lambastes fundamentalist Christianity and what he calls its divisive good-vs.-evil, us-vs.-them "binary worldview," he is also a Presbyterian minister's son and has a Harvard divinity degree. Which qualifies him for the ostensibly odd role -- a game of Twister unto itself -- of supporting religious ritual and belief in the supernatural while being denounced as a callow hypocrite by a world-famous colleague who might once have agreed with him on everything.

That colleague now disagrees with him on nearly everything, though before the night was over both expressed a loathing for the KKK. That was a hard bill to fill: chewing the fat about faith with a celebrity atheist -- an "ex-socialist," as the evening's emcee would call Hitchens, succinctly -- in a stalwartly secular college town, during an arguably religious war, at an event bristling with contradictions.

Its cosponsors were Cody's independent bookstore, Berkeley free-speech-radio station KPFA and the Zaytuna Institute -- a traditionalist Islamic education center and seminary in nearby Hayward that maintains a strict dress code including long-sleeved shirts and scarves for female students and whose Web site outlines its mission to use "the most effective tools of our time as a means of serving our Lord and honoring our Prophet, sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam."

Sharing the middle-school auditorium lobby with a Zaytuna table and a book-selling table were representatives of the Revolutionary Communist Party. A Christian booth of some kind would have made for an even more provocative mix, but that contingent -- along with Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Baha'i and, for that matter, Berkeley's thriving neopagans -- was either not invited to set up a table or declined. Hitchens spoke first, smirking that "since I'm in Berkeley, California, the mush-headed view" pervading the audience was surely that faith inspires ethics. Yet "our morality, our human solidarity," he avowed, "are innate."

Rather than springing from some religious code whose every behavioral prompt is "either a bribe or a threat," drawn from doctrine that "either demands total abjection or proposes that you are the egomaniacal center of the universe," acts of kindness and activism and the saving and taking of lives spring, he believes, from some universal interior monitor that gauges right and wrong.

"It also makes me rejoice in the deaths of my enemies," he said and stood back, as if the hostility in the hall was palpable. "I can't change that. And neither can you, pray as you might." Scorning a classic Christian tenet, Hitchens snarled, "Go ahead and love your enemies. Don't go loving mine."

His enemies are "the enemies of civilization" and they "should be beaten." He spoke of hordes aching to kill us and our children and burn our libraries. He cited "the Iranians, [who] have a tooth-fairy god called the Twelfth Imam," and who "managed by piracy to have acquired an apocalyptic weapon to drive the lesson home. These people are coming after you, too, and it's time you woke up to it." Hedges bristled. "The problem," he countered, "is not religion. The problem is religious orthodoxy." Religion isn't as toxic as "that disease of nationalism" from which "comes a blind racism." What spurs evil acts, he told the crowd, was "the clamor of the tribe or the nation" -- though anyone might argue that the lines between faith, tribalism and nationalism are fuzzy these days at best.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: atheism, religion

Anneli Rufus is the author of several books, including "Party of One: The Loners' Manifesto."

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Picking Fights Where You Can Find One?
Posted by: edith on May 29, 2007 1:31 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]

» RE: I Choose Atheism! Posted by: LeftCoastProgressive
» RE: I Choose Atheism! Posted by: poppop_schell
» RE: I Choose Atheism! Posted by: Bibs
» RE: I Choose Atheism! Posted by: Tatarize
» RE: Choosing Atheism Posted by: LeftCoastProgressive
» Comfort Zone? Posted by: LeftCoastProgressive
» THE EXPERIMENT!!!! PART ONE Posted by: poppop_schell
» THE EXPWERIMENT: PART TWO Posted by: poppop_schell
» RE: THE EXPWERIMENT: PART TWO Posted by: poppop_schell
» BE CAREFUL WHAT SPIRITS YOU FOLLOW. Posted by: poppop_schell
» The Book of MORON Posted by: karma_ran_over_dogma
» RE: The Book of MORON Posted by: factbased
» SCIENCE NEEDS TO REPLICABLE? Posted by: poppop_schell
» RE: SCIENCE NEEDS TO REPLICABLE? Posted by: poppop_schell
» WHY THE DELAY? Posted by: poppop_schell
» RE: WHY THE DELAY? Posted by: factbased
» WHY THE DELAY? Posted by: poppop_schell
» I am glad to see you love Marx. Posted by: LeftCoastProgressive
» Ahh WoozeyNess! Posted by: LeftCoastProgressive
» Yup. Posted by: fanny666
Binary Worldviews
Posted by: Monitor523 on May 29, 2007 2:21 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]

» DEBATE OR OPPORTUNITY FOR MOCKERY? Posted by: poppop_schell
» "Let's call a spade a space" Posted by: karma_ran_over_dogma
» Sounds like Jesus is talking to YOU, pal! Posted by: karma_ran_over_dogma
» RE: DEBATE OR OPPORTUNITY FOR MOCKERY? Posted by: LeftCoastProgressive
» NAME CALLING AGAIN? Posted by: poppop_schell
» RE: NAME CALLING AGAIN? Posted by: LeftCoastProgressive
» RE: NAME CALLING AGAIN? Posted by: fork
» RE: Binary Worldviews Posted by: wmGreybeard
» RE: Binary Worldviews Posted by: Tatarize
It's good to see that at least one Leftist "gets it" about Islam
Posted by: ISlamIslam on May 29, 2007 3:42 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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 Bush angle in this Posted by: karma_ran_over_dogma
» Hitchens - pisses everyone off Posted by: Veronique
» Agreed Posted by: Philip Newton
» RE: Agreed Posted by: poppop_schell
» RE: Agreed Posted by: LeftCoastProgressive
» RE: Agreed Posted by: poppop_schell
» RE: Agreed Posted by: LeftCoastProgressive
» No. I am an atheist. Posted by: justaguy
» RE: No. I am an atheist. Posted by: poppop_schell
» RE: No. I am an atheist. Posted by: ISlamIslam
» You're making my case Posted by: ISlamIslam
» RE: No. I am an atheist. Posted by: ISlamIslam
Relgion of man and it's mistakes does not negate the concept of God
Posted by: Cousin Jack on May 29, 2007 3:47 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]

» Godless Man Posted by: LeftCoastProgressive
» RE: ...the concept of God Posted by: pdxstudent
YadaYadaYada This was not a debate, it was mutual masturbation
Posted by: halweiner on May 29, 2007 3:52 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]

» RE: YadaYadaYada Brain Puss Posted by: LeftCoastProgressive
» RE: YadaYadaYada Brain Puss Posted by: hellofriends
» RE: YadaYadaYada Brain Puss Posted by: LeftCoastProgressive
» RE: YadaYadaYada Brain Puss Posted by: hellofriends
» RE: YadaYadaYada Brain Puss Posted by: Lauren
» RE: YadaYadaYada Brain Puss Posted by: hellofriends
» RE: YadaYadaYada Hello Friends Has Brain Puss! Posted by: LeftCoastProgressive
» Dear Left Coast Posted by: hellofriends
» Sorry, forgot my bibliography Posted by: hellofriends
» RE: There is NO You Posted by: Ripcord
» mu Posted by: hellofriends
» RE: mu Posted by: Ripcord
» RE: mu Posted by: LeftCoastProgressive
» RE: mu Posted by: hellofriends
» name-calling again. Matthew 7:6 Posted by: poppop_schell
Hic-up Hitchens and his heterosexual love affair with Johnny Walker.
Posted by: HughScott on May 29, 2007 4:02 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]

» RE: Hic-up Hitchens diagnosed? Posted by: LeftCoastProgressive