Hitchens takes the stage...

This weekend, I took the opportunity to attend a communal gathering of atheists, agnostics, unbelievers, world thinkers, reasoners, scientific determinists, and many more self-made labels at the Freedom From Religion Foundation's annual convention. Truthfully, I only registered - and paid - to hear the keynote speaker - Mr. Christopher Hitchens. Hitchens was not only the keynote speaker, but also received the "Emperor Has No Clothes" award - given to an outspoken freethinker in the world. Seem a little over the top to you? It did to me, but the pomp and circumstance was actually tolerable. The major focus of the convention, like all seem to be, was to glad hand and congratulate each other on being part of a wonderful group. Fortuitously, I am well versed attending group functions in which I do not have complete faith (2 puns, 1 sentence?). As I noted, I attended only the Hitchens talk and thus cannot offer a true critique of the convention as a whole (Nor do I think it best to get into that game). What I can do, is pass along some of the thoughts promoted by Hitchens and offer my perspective. Given the fact that my original intent was to review god is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything as the initial post on this blog, I thought it appropriate to instead start straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak. [I will hopefully finish the review of god is not Great prior to Nov. 1].


The introductory remarks were focused on his travels to and through the bible belt debating christian scholars. He speculated that he could not have been much more fortunate than to start his tour in North Carolina the same day that Falwell's body was found in his office - "unraptured, I might add." He added another statement with regards to Mr. Falwell that must be shared in the unadultered form, so I apologize to the sensitive minds out there, "If he were given an enema upon death, he could have been buried in a matchbox." He also mentioned a spot on Hannity and Colmes regarding Falwell, which can be accessed via YouTube. After this initial come together mantra, Hitchens began laying the groundwork for the schism in the group - pun intended. Hitchens discussed how religion has a totalitarian mindset, it has racist, sexist, and genocidal tendencies, and through to the point that despite the desires of many philosophers in the recent past - We cannot keep science and religion in separate realms anymore. He then shared his three questions that he has been posing in his debates with religious figures:

1. Can you think of an ethical action that was done by a religious believer, which could not have been done by a non-believer?


2. Conversely, can you think of an unethical action done by a religious believer, which could not have been done by a non-believer?


3. If equal time is to be given to Intelligent Design and Evolutionary Theory, would all religious groups receiving funding via the Faith Based Initiative have to offer equal time to Darwin and Jesus?

I admittedly could not think of an answer to number 1, and number 2 has numerous examples - though I'm not sure what premises must be accepted to answer in the affirmative - though, if as Hitchens claims we must, we take the historical perspective I can fathom significantly more. As to the third question, I cannot think that this is anything other than humor to bring back a perplexed audience following the rather detailed logical arguments from the first two - though imagining Darwin in Sunday school is amusing. It was at this point when the audience was at its highest level of glee when, always the polemicist, Hitchens wove the anti-religious into a discussion of Jihad, Islamo-Fascism, and the needed action from the West.

This same line of reasoning that, depending on whom you ask, caused Hitchens to leave the Left or the Left to boot Hitchens (My ex-fundamentalist convert friend, K.Wayne, likes to say that he was traded to the Left for Hitchens). For our purposes, the keys to this argument are that we are entering a period in which theocratic regimes, states, and non-state actors are all pursuing thermo-nuclear capabilities. These groups are not friendly to the modernity and its principal values of science, reason, equality, opportunity, and freedom. Hitchens argues that failure to act in a very assertive manner in support of the rights of man and values of modernity, will only delay the inevitable clash between Civilization and Theocracy. The arguments against this view abound in the world today, ranging from the moral relativism rooted in post-modern individualized thought to the complete pacifism espoused by anti-war groups. These arguments have merit and to variant degrees my support, but it is imperative that a reason based foreign policy take hold and like it or not - Hitchens raises some pertinent questions that need be addressed in any coherent foreign policy.

Overall, Hitchens offered a presentation that was to be seen. His wit, humor, intellect and British accent should be experienced in the flesh. His view that he is the smartest man in the room - though necessarily not always true - is not easily refuted after his successful outwitting and sometimes condemnatory remarks towards questioners. I truly believe that this man absolutely lives for debate - and is quite good at it. Agree or disagree with him, he will fight till the end. In the slight conversation I had with him afterwards, it was readily apparent that he is a man with convictions - not religious of course - but a conviction to the Jeffersonian America as a place where a truly free marketplace of ideas can be established and will lead to a refreshing re-Enlightenment where science and reason trump religion and superstition. It is this, above all else, that is holy to the anti-theist. Though the justification of the means can be debated, the ends of Hitchens are on firm and defensible - at least by himself - ground.