Hitchens - Scheduled to speak at Atheist Convention , Generates Controversy

[stevenleser]

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_steven_l_070729_hitchens___scheduled.htm

July 29, 2007

Hitchens - Scheduled to speak at Atheist Convention , Generates Controversy

By Steven Leser


Christopher Hitchens is scheduled to speak at the annual convention of the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF, http://ffrf.org/events/2007/ ) in October. The journalist and author of the bestselling "God is Not Great" is appearing all by himself to talk at a general session. This has generated a series of heated emails back and forth between members of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, its leadership and other interested parties.

I should state up front that I am not an atheist. However, as someone who is vigorously in favor of the separation of church and state, I view atheist organizations like FFRF as important allies in the struggle to keep religion out of politics and thus I am an interested party.

The objections many of us have against Hitchens appearing alone are several:

1. His seeming unqualified support for the current US administration, an administration that has gone farther than any other previously in the US to integrate religion and state with policies like the Faith Based Charity Initiatives, support of Prayer in School, etc.

2. His attacks on the Anti-War movement that marry red-baiting and Islam-bashing in a nasty cocktail of prejudice.

3. His journalistic style which in general appears to eschew the rationalist and scientific bent of atheist movements and embraces emotionalism and rhetoric over reason, rationalism and the scientific method.

Those participating in the email debate run the political spectrum from conservatives/republicans to Democrats and Liberals all the way to Marxists. The questions go to the heart of the Atheistic and separation of church and state movements. What does it really mean to be an atheist? To be against church and state? Does Hitchens fit in well with either of these movements? Should he be given such an important platform all to himself by one of the more respected organizations in those movements without a counterweight?

I have copied a few of the emails below ordered chronologically from bottom to top. As always, I welcome the vigorous debate and comments from those in the OpEdNews community.



-------------------------------------------




Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2007 11:40:24 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Steven Leser" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Christopher Hitchens -- Shill, Flack, Mouthpiece, and Hack for the Worst ...
To: "Vic Stenger" <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
CC:
In-Reply-To:
Victor -

I think you may have read some of the emails a bit too quickly. I did not see anyone advocating that Hitchens be banned from speaking. If anyone did let me say that I disagree with that. What I saw Allan suggest and I agree with wholeheartedly is that he not be given a platform all to himself. A speaker who can articulate an opposing viewpoint should be present.

I gave two reasons why and I will give another. Hitchens is amazingly narrow in his criticisms of the marriage of church and state. I've never heard him criticize the likes of Ann Coulter, who has said things in her column like that we should "invade them (Islamic countries) kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity" and who wrote the book "Godless: The Church of Liberalism" a pointed criticism of the Democratic Left in this country for in her mind not being pious enough. This lack of criticism of Coulter is despite the fact that the two of them make the rounds on many of the same talk shows. Their paths have crossed countless times in the last 10 years yet he is silent on her. In fact, I dont recall any criticisms by Hitchens of the Christian Coalition, Jerry Falwell, or any other similar character.

When he has addressed the last two elections in this country (the US for any non Americans on the recipient list) why hasnt he mentioned his atheism? George W. Bush has made the fact that he is a Christian an important part of his campaign. Shouldn't Hitchens have said something even if he liked everything else about Bush? In fact, Hitchens did publish an article right before the 2004 election. Do you think he mentioned anything about his atheistic views? http://www.thenation.com/doc/20041108/hitchens No, not at all.

In fact, in the article subsequent to the one above, he is an apologist for Bush's attempt to marry church and state because he fights the marriage of church and state in the Middle East http://www.slate.com/id/2109377/ . In fact, he refers to the re-election of the architect of faith based initiatives and proponent of prayer in schools and other gems of the religious right as "Bush's Secular Triumph". Forgetting any other disagreements by those on the political left and right in this country, I do not see how any atheist can view the election of someone who is for the intertwining of church and state like Bush as anything other than a setback.

Do you see why one might believe that Hitchens' atheism is a bit strange and slanted? Do you see why we think that a counterbalance might be needed?


Vic Stenger <[e-mail]> wrote:
I met Hitchens in New York in June (I love New York in June) when we were on a panel together at the Book Expo. I found him to be a charming man. He complemented me on my book, said he had read it twice and had given four copies to friends. Since then he has plugged the book on several occasions.

Now, of course you will say, so what? But I have more to say. I have discovered that he is an intensely moral person. He has praised Free Inquiry for publishing the Danish Mohammed cartoons and denounced the rest of the US media and churches for cowardly sympathizing with the Muslims because it is so politically incorrect to criticize religion, especially if it is a religion of people of color. When Borders removed Free Inquiry from its shelves, Hitchens refused to speak in any of their books stores on his recent tour.


I disagree with him on Iraq. But he is the most eloquent atheist out there and the most knowledgeable. What is it with liberals that one has to agree with the party line or be treated as a pariah? They are as bad as right wing ideologues. Can't a person have a mind of his own?



------------------------------------------------------------------
Victor J. Stenger
Professor Emeritus of Physics and Astronomy, University of HawaiiAdjunct Professor of Philosophy, University of ColoradoAuthor of recent New York Times bestseller
God: The Failed Hypothesis. How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist
http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger

-------------------------------------------------------------------


Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 10:36:32 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Steven Leser" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Christopher Hitchens -- Shill, Flack, Mouthpiece, and Hack for the Worst Theocratic Political Regime in U.S. History, the Theocratic Imperialist Cheney-Bush Regime
To: "Tom Paine" <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
CC:
In addition to what Alan wrote, I would also point anyone wanting to decide whether someone like Hitchens should speak alone to FFRF to Hitchen's polemics both against Clinton in the Lewinsky scandal, and more recently his rants against the study in the Lancet http://www.slate.com/id/2151607/?nav=tap3 for the amount of civilian deaths in Iraq.

In both of these situations, Hitchens played on appeals to emotion rather than rational and/or scientific principles. To my way of thinking the atheist and FFRF organizations among other similar groups and movements are based on rationalism and scientific principles. Like many studies listed in the Lancet, the study that estimates the amount of deaths in Iraq from the war to date is based on the best peer reviewed scientific and statistical analysis available. Hitchens doesn't even try to provide better science to refute it. He falls back on tried and true red-baiting accusing the editor of the Lancet of being "a full-throated speaker at rallies of the Islamist-Leftist alliance that makes up the British Stop the War Coalition". Nevermind that the editor had nothing to do with the study. He did not commission it. He was not part of the peer-review process for it or anything of the sort.

The Lancet is arguably one of the most respected periodicals in the medical community. It is one of the preferred places for doctors and other medical researchers to publish groundbreaking treatment discoveries. Hitchens treats it as if it is an adjunct to 1970's era Pravda for no other reason than a peer reviewed study therein contradicts his politics. Any organization that is on the vanguard of rational thought should think long and hard about giving someone like that a platform all to himself.

Steve Leser


Tom Paine <[e-mail]> wrote:
Friday
July 27, 2007

Dear Freedom from Religion Foundation:

I'm a member of the FFRF, the Atheist Alliance, and an associate member of the Council for Secular Humanism.

I have already lobbied Ms. Margaret Downey of the Atheist Alliance on this issue, and I'm lobbying you, now.

I will make the same suggestion to you that I made to her about the upcoming Atheist Alliance convention. This time, I make it about the upcoming FFRF convention.

If you are going to have the shill, flack, mouthpiece for the worst theocratic political regime in American history, the Cheney-Bush regime, Christopher Hitchens, speaking, the least you could do is have a prominent public atheist such as Tariq Ali or Gore Vidal, both of whom are anti-imperialists and strong opponents of the Cheney-Bush regime's imperialist invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, speak to counter the lies of Hitchens when he's questioned about the Cheney-Bush policies, and his flacking, lying, mouthpiecing, and shilling for the Cheney-Bush gangsters.

I was happy the FFRF sued the Cheney-Bush thugs, and unhappy the FFRF lost its lawsuit over religion-government separation.

I like Hitchens' book, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything.

But Hitchens is, to me, one of the most reprehensible types of people, for he has given an "atheist" cover to the Cheney-Bush policies. His raving idiocies about his invented phrase, Islamo-fascism, are designed to whitewash an imperialist system that has done more to reinforce the flow of Near Easterners into the ranks of Islamic extremism than anything else.
.
.
.

[flashl]

1. Just when you think the grass is greener on the other side n/t

[DavidDvorkin]

2. I'm an atheist and a member of FFRF

In some respects, I dislike Hitchens intensely. However, that has to do with his political positions on mattes having nothing to do with atheism or separation of church and state.

Given his high visibility, and assuming that he will speak (mostly, anyway) about separation, I have no objections to his speaking at the convention. The media attention will be, you could say, a godsend.

[stevenleser]

3. David - Thanks for the response

I dont object to his speaking there either. Those of us who have any sort of objection object to his having the platform all to himself during the session. We feel that having a counterweight like Gore Vidal would be a better option than for Hitchens to speak by himself.

[sarcasmo]

17. My thought exactly. Why would they let Hitchens speak by himself.

IMHO, he is a right wing tool, regardless of what books he writes. Atheist and proud.

[TheBaldyMan]

4. I heard a recent interview with Hitchens where he includes Falwell in his criticism

of religious policy drivers in the US. However there is no way of separating the man from his RW politics. Chris Hitchens is as outspoken against religion as he is on left wing policies.

As long as you bear in mind that his comments may be less than ideologically pure you can include him in debate. There will still be the danger that some comments of his will be as easily dismissed as, for example, the objections of the US to Iran interfering with Iraq's internal affairs.

Would you exclude Henry Kissinger from a debate about post-war US policy in SE Asia?

[stevenleser]

5. I would have the same objection, yes

I would suggest to any organization booking Kissinger to speak about post-war US policy in SE Asia that they also have a good speaker able to give the opposing viewpoint.

The key word in your post is 'debate'. There will be none as things stand at FFRF. Hitchens will be speaking all by himself during the session.

[stevenleser]

6. In response to your other point, I would say...

that it is easier to find Hitchens' criticisms of Kerry and Democrats than it is to find criticisms of the American Religious right and their political initiatives. As a matter of fact, finding criticisms of the latter are difficult indeed. Again, this is very hard to understand for someone supposedly an avowed atheist and vigorously against the integration of church and state.

I simply doubt his atheism, his book notwithstanding. I think that a more truthful description of his beliefs is that he is bigoted against Islam in particular and non Christian religions in general. He is what a similarly named website used to call a "Media Whore".

[Briar]

7. I agree

I am an atheist, but all I detect in his arguments (the title of his book illustrates the point perfectly: it should simply have been God is not, surely) is a ruthless determination to bait muslims and flaunt his islamophobia.

[shrike]

10. Glad to hear you say that

I am a believer, but this is surely one area where we can agree.

Hitchens was an enthusiastic support of the Iraq war, and his recent comments on Islam disturb me greatly.

[TheBaldyMan]

9. I am in two minds whether it would be impossible to let him lecture

perhaps rant might be a better description. I'd be less than enthusiastic to give him a platform to proselytise for the right wing but I am not too sure how effective it would be given the expected audience. It might end up back-firing because of the obvious contempt he has for those on the left.

I'd be tempted to let him speak if you could somehow include a caveat about his RW views.

[MindPilot]

8. long-time FFRF member here...

Right off the top, I don't like Hitchens. He could be as ideologically pure as Will Pitt and I still wouldn't like him.

But that said, I think the fact that he is a "big name" author and an outspoken atheist certainly affords him a place at the table. The philosophy of separation of church and state should apply not only to government policy but also to one's personal politics and religion or lack thereof.

FFRF's conventions have never been debate forums or political platforms and the group's tax status requires that it steer clear of taking any political position. When authors like Hitchens present, they speak, they answer questions, and then they sign (and sell) books. It is simply not part of the format to present a set of opposing views to provide balance at any one convention. And to get speakers it's not simply matter of picking up the phone and saying, "hey Noam, FFRF here, can you jet across the country and pop in quick to refute some stupid shit Chris Hitchens just said?"

I for one welcome to opportunity to directly ask Hitchens something along the lines of "how can you be so right about religion on one hand yet support what amounts to a theocratic government waging a crusade on the other?" And I believe the FFRF membership will hammer him hard on that point. In that regard I have to admire Hitchens' courage; he's no dummy and he has to know his views on Bush's War will not be well-received and probably will overshadow his accomplishments in the getting-the-word-out-about-atheism arena.

I also have a bit of a hunch--a "gut feeling" if you will--that Chris will find out at the last minute that he just can't get drunk enough to be as courageous as I think he is and bail.

[muriel_volestrangler]

11. Isn't it ironic that you're attacking his politics?

In a society with complete separation of church and state, surely the suitability of a speaker at a conference about atheism shouldn't depend on their politics? Aren't you, in fact, arguing for religion and politics to be mixed?

Hitchens on Falwell (this is the first result for a Google search for '"Chistopher Hitchens" Falwell'):

HITCHENS: The empty life of this ugly little charlatan proves only one thing, that you can get away with the most extraordinary offenses to morality and to truth in this country if you will just get yourself called reverend. Who would, even at your network, have invited on such a little toad to tell us that the attacks of September the 11th were the result of our sinfulness and were God's punishment if they hadn't got some kind of clerical qualification?

People like that should be out in the street, shouting and hollering with a cardboard sign and selling pencils from a cup. The whole consideration of this -- of this horrible little person is offensive to very, very many of us who have some regard for truth and for morality, and who think that ethics do not require that lies be told to children by evil old men, that we're -- we're not told that people who believe like Falwell will be snatched up into heaven, where I'm glad to see he skipped the rapture, just found on the floor of his office, while the rest of us go to hell.

How dare they talk to children like this? How dare they raise money from credulous people on their huckster-like Elmer Gantry radio stations, and fly around in private jets, as he did, giggling and sniggering all the time at what he was getting away with?

Do you get an idea now of what I mean to say?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eat-the-press/2007/05/16/christopher-hitchens-on-j_e_48586.html

That's fairly clear, and easy to find.

Hitchens on Coulter - review of 'Godless' (first result of Google search for '"Christopher Hitchens" Coulter', again):

Here is another instance of the sheer incoherence that results from a mixture of feigned rage and low sarcasm:

If liberals are on Red Alert with one born-again Christian in the cabinet of a Christian president, imagine how they would react if there were five. Between 25 and 45 percent of the population calls itself “born-again” or “evangelical” Christian. Jews make up less than 2 per cent of the nation’s population, and yet Clinton had five in his cabinet. He appointed two to the Supreme Court. Now guess which administration is called a neoconservative conspiracy? Whether Jews or Christians, liberals are always on a witch hunt against people who appear to believe in God.

Again, and quite aside from its junk statistics (that space “between 25 and 45 per cent” appears to involve quite a margin of error) and its junk statistical comparisons (does Coulter really want me to name all the Jews who serve on President Bush’s foreign-policy team?), this passage seems to license the ultra-left and ultra-right innuendo that the terms ‘neoconservative’ and ‘Jew’ are interchangeable. The intellectual disgrace of this is self-evident, and so is its vulgar ignorance: say what you will about Leo Strauss, he did not even “appear” to believe in any deity. More noticeable, though, is the way that the abject confusion, with its resounding non sequitur of a concluding sentence, impels her to the negation of her own supposed “argument”. These are the pitfalls that are set by spite and by haste, and Coulter topples leggily into them every time.

Since her books always pull enough of a crowd to put them on the bestseller list, the editors and fact-checkers at her publishing house evidently go on vacation when the manuscripts float in. For all her show of biblical learning, she does not know the meaning of the word “shibboleth”, for example. She attacks those who seek “the removal of ‘under God’ from the Pledge of Allegiance”, when the case is that the Pledge should be restored to its original form, which did not include those two words. Are not conservatives supposed to manifest great respect for ‘original intent’? And then there’s the crass choice of words:

If Democrats ever dared speak coherently about what they believe, the American people would lynch them.

Leave aside the fact that most of what Coulter adduces is taken straight from the very mouths of Democrats who are coming right out with it, and notice the clumsy elision that interchanges “liberal”, “Democrat” and “Left”(and skip over the unironic use of the word “coherently”), the term to avoid here would have been “lynch”. Never to be employed flippantly, this expression has a real-time and real-life significance, which was felt very onerously in quite recent memory. Its disappearance, and the abolition of what went with it, is admittedly not due to “Democrats”, who ran Dixie as a private fief for far too long, but does redound very much to the credit of those American liberals and – even worse! – leftists who provided most of the energy of the Civil Rights movement. The umbrella group in this campaign was even called the ‘Southern Christian Leadership Conference’, not that this prevented many secularists and atheists from participating in it. Finally, I think we can safely say that Dr Martin Luther King “appeared” to believe in god. So, slice it as you will, Coulter finds herself inventing new ways in which to be wrong.

http://www.theliberal.co.uk/hitchens.htm

So, he's no fan of Coulter, either. Both of these took mere seconds to find. Why did you think he hasn't talked about Coulter or Falwell?

[TheBaldyMan]

12. Not being as rabid as Coulter or Falwell doesn't validate his politics

He is still a right winger.

I am not saying he shouldn't speak but I do think that we should consider the man as a whole. I can't speak for anyone else but that was the impression I took from the post, any association with Chris Hitchens would be an uncomfortable one. This remains problematic even after taking into account inaccuracies about his stance on certain religious bigots.

The OP did make a mistake but I still think it's his politics are the problem. He is the enemy of our enemy but any agreement on a single issue would seem to be exceptionally rare.

[muriel_volestrangler]

13. But who is 'we' in this case?

The FFRF isn't a left wing organisation. It's an non-theist one, but Leser is trying to say that Hitchens is a problem in it. He's not actually right wing - but he is a strong supporter of the Iraq invasion and occupation. But on the subject of religion, he has, in contradiction to the claims in the OP, consistently attacked right wingers who try to use religion for political purposes. But bringing Hitchens' political stance into it confuses the FFRF's fundamental point - that politics and religion are separate things. It's somewhat unclear what the connection between the FFRF's conference and DU, or Leser, is anyway. Leser seems to think that he has a veto on who speaks, or how, at FFRF. For some reason, he's brought that here. :shrug:

[stevenleser]

15. "A veto?"

As a free person, I have the same ability to voice an opinion on something as everyone with a keyboard has. Does that mean everyone writes to object to something believes they have "a veto"?

[muriel_volestrangler]

19. You're not just writing to the FFRF

with whom your connection seems unclear; you're also writing op-eds and threads like this, seemingly wanting to rally the troops around your objection to the FFRF's convention lineup.

[TheBaldyMan]

16. I'd say Chris Hitchens is right wing, based on his long association with the RW press

He seems to be happier in the company of the Daily Telegraph rather than the Guardian or Daily Mirror. Hitchens is an American citizen now and claims not to be a Republican, rather he claims he is a libertarian. In my books that's code for right-winger who's too mean to stump up their party dues.

On your other point, Mr Leser has acknowledged his particular error about Hitchens not attacking RW religious figures and doesn't strike me as someone who claims to speak on behalf of the FFRF. In any case, I still agree with him about his disquiet about having Hitchens given a platform without the caveat about his politics.

[muriel_volestrangler]

18. I disagree with your characterisation about Hitchens

A typical biography of him - he wrote for The Nation for 20 years: http://www.thenation.com/directory/bios/christopher_hitchens

It's basically since Sept 2001 that he's been putting out the 'Islamofascist' stuff, and has been pro-war. (Daily Telegrpah sounds more like his brother Peter, to me). In The Guardian, you can find an anti-monarchy piece, and many more.

[TheBaldyMan]

20. I can't see how you can fit a fag paper between the views of the hitchens brothers myself

but as I've already said in various posts elsewhere I am very left wing so I suppose the finer points between their politics are lost on me.

I know that Chris Hitchens was on the left in days of yore, unlike his brother Peter who was always a tory. Chris seems to have followed the path that quite a few on the left have followed and become increasingly conservative over the years.

Richard Littlejohn, Melanie Phillips, Gary Bushell & Chris Hitchens were once progressives or extreme lefties. None of them strike me as particularly liberal today.

IMO being an atheist republican precludes anyone from the right wing. I heard a recent interview between the two brothers Hitchen on religion recently and while they did have some disagreements on that subject there didn't seem to be that much of a difference, although not identical, between the pair politically.

[stevenleser]

14. Many people wrote me to "correct me" on this...

... I would say in response that for every criticism of Falwell and Coulter and other wonderful specimens of the Religious Right in this country (which I did not find in my initial research, by the way) there are about 300 criticisms of "Islamo-Fascists" and about 100 criticisms of Democrats/Leftists for not wanting to fight the "Islamo-Fascists" and about another 50 articles praising Bush for his fighting the "Islamo-Fascists" and minimizing the idea that Bush is trying to marriage church and state in this country.

Minimizing the desire of (and I would go so far as to say to be an apologist for) the Bushites attempts to establish a Christian theocracy here is a strange way to express atheism and a desire to maintain the separation of church and state. Is such a person a good candidate to speak at a major atheist conference and have a platform all to himself?

Now, I understand that FFRF hasn't had a conference session in the past set up for multiple speakers or debates. I have had some very nice and respectful private email discussions with at least one member of FFRF leadership and I think we understand each other very well. They seem determined to press forward with Hitchens as is. I think that as FFRF matures, they will understand that as much attention as Hitchens will generate, it isn't worth giving the appearance that what Hitchens talks about is representative of atheism and FFRF.

That being said, I support the organization and its goals. They will overcome this I am sure.