» Christopher Hitchens

Christopher Hitchens

...now browsing by tag

 
 

Church Of England To Take On ‘New Atheists’

Wednesday, February 9th, 2011

Clergy are to be urged to be more vocal in countering the arguments put forward by a more hard-line group of atheists such as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, who have campaigned for a less tolerant attitude towards religion.

A report endorsed by Dr Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, warns that the Church faces a battle to prevent faith being seen as “a social problem” and says the next five years are set to be a period of “exceptional challenge”.

It expresses concern that Christians are facing hostility at work and says the Church could lose its place at the centre of public life unless it challenges attempts to marginalise religious belief.

The rallying call comes amid fears that Christians are suffering from an increasing level of discrimination following a series of cases in which they have been punished for sharing their beliefs.

Members of the General Synod, the Church’s parliament, will be asked at this week’s meeting to back the landmark report, which outlines a vision to ensure a strong future of the Church.

Commissioned by Dr Williams and Dr John Sentamu, the Archbishop of York, it says that religion in Britain is under threat from atheists, but admits that the Church faces many internal problems as well, from ageing congregations to rows over homosexuality.

Drawing particular attention to the threat posed by a new movement of militant atheists, led by Dawkins and Hitchens, it says the Church must respond if it is not to be pushed from the public square.

“One of the paradoxes of recent times has been the increasing secularisation of society and attempts to marginalise religion alongside an increasing interest in spiritual issues and in the social and cultural implications of religious faith,” says the report, called Challenges for the New Quinquennium.

The Church must be “explicit about the need to counter attempts to marginalise Christianity and to treat religious faith more generally as a social problem,” it says.

“This is partly about taking on the ‘new atheism’.

“Bishops have a key role here both as public apologists and as teachers of the faith.”

The Church is keen to address the rise of new atheism, which has grown over recent years with the publication of bestselling books arguing against religion.

However, the document says that this intolerance is becoming more widespread and can be seen in public bodies, which it says must be challenged over attitudes of “suspicion or hostility towards churches and other faith groups”.

In recent years, a number of Christians have taken legal action against local councils and hospital trusts after being disciplined for expressing their faith by wearing crosses or refusing to act against their orthodox beliefs.

“There is still work to be done to counter the prevailing tendency of treating faith as a private matter which should not impact on what happens in the public realm.

“This is a challenge for all churches and faiths, but especially for the Church of England.”

The report, produced by the Rt Rev David Urquhart and the Rt Rev Alastair Redfern, the bishops of Birmingham and Derby respectively, also highlights the main problems facing the Church.

It says the Church of England can appear too vague on where it stands on issues and risks further divisions over the introduction of women bishops and future debates about sexuality.

“By conducting its internal discussions in public it offers a model of openness yet sometimes makes it hard for others to discern where it stands on particular issues,” the report states.

It predicts “the next five years are set to be a period of exceptional challenge for the nation and the Church of England.”

In particular, it points to the fallout from the economic crisis, shrinking and ageing congregations and the retirement of 40 per cent of its paid clergy in the next decade.

The Great Debate

Sunday, November 28th, 2010

What was missing inside the plush and awfully polite Roy Thomson Hall was not wit, wisdom or star wattage. For a debate about religion and its influence on world politics and humankind you could do no better than Tony Blair and Christopher Hitchens. What was missing was Michelle Robidoux.

More specifically, we needed the indignation of Ms Robidoux, a 49-year-old translator who, with about 60 other angry souls, braved Toronto’s sub-zero winds outside as the audience arrived to vent noisily about the former prime minister and the invasion of Iraq. “Don’t fete him, arrest him,” she told this reporter. “How dare he come and talk about God? He lied not just to Britain but to the whole world.”

The pre-debate hour was quite the hurly-burly, in fact. Not only was the event a sell-out but tickets were changing hands on the internet for $300 (£190). Moreover, patrons more used to Purcell and Liszt hadn’t been warned to come early, yet every handbag, whichever the designer, had to be searched for grenades. Few knew what the resulting delay – the lights went down half an hour late – was costing. Hitchens is weakened not just by an aggressive cancer but by aggressive chemotherapy, too. If you sat close you could see that his lower eyelids have that thin red edge of distress. When staff came to his small backstage room to inform him of yet another 10-minute delay, he looked up and nearly begged; the energy was leaking away.

One of a series of so-called Munk Debates – Peter Munk is a gold tycoon and philanthropist here – this encounter invited us to consider the resolution “Religion is a force for good in the world”. Votes were taken before the encounter and after. The pre-debate scores showed that Blair, looking entirely trim, had a hill to climb. It was 57 per cent for cons and 22 per cent for the pros. (The rest were undecided.)

Both men came amply equipped for this particular battle, of course. Post-Downing Street, the converted Catholic Blair has created a foundation that precisely seeks to close rifts between the world’s dominant faiths. To make sure that religion is indeed a positive force, he teaches about it at Yale.

Hitchens, of course, wrote a book on the topic, God Is Not Great, wherein you will find much of the thesis that he brought to Toronto: religion is destructive, is based on superstitious hokum and, a bit like communism, might briefly seem noble until you see that it steals your every freedom away. Religions, he offers in his opening statement, require that we “are created sick and then ordered to be well”. He goes on: “And over us to supervise this is a sort of celestial dictatorship, a kind of divine North Korea … Salvation is offered at the low price of the surrender of your critical faculties.”

The advantages for Hitchens over Blair were probably many, even beyond our sympathy for his personal plight. Toronto, judging by that pre-debate vote, is a rather secular place. But, most importantly, it is just much easier to highlight all the bad things humans have done in the name of religion – and even get some laughs – than it is to explain the good faith can do, to individual souls as well as the world.

Click to continue »

Is the Vatican a Sovereign State?

Wednesday, June 2nd, 2010

by Christopher Hitchens

Elena Kagan and her colleagues in the solicitor general’s office say it is. They should be ashamed.

Those scrutinizing the nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court might want to pay some attention to the recent decision of her office—the office of the solicitor general of the United States—to take the side of the Vatican in the continuing scandal of child rape and the associated scandal of a coordinated obstruction of justice. Faced with a number of court cases in the United States that have named the pope himself as a defendant in the enabling and covering up of many rapes, the Vatican has evolved the strategy of claiming that the Holy See is in effect a sovereign state and thus possessed of immunity from prosecution. It has now been announced that the Obama administration will be advising the Supreme Court to adopt this view of the matter.

There are a number of fascinating ramifications of this opinion. It is not usually considered polite to mention that the majority of Supreme Court justices are practicing Roman Catholics. (Writing about this delicate matter during the argument over the nomination of John Roberts, I did warn that there might come a day when it could pose a double conflict of interest, both in respect of church teachings and in respect of the Vatican’s decision to shelter Cardinal Bernard Law of Boston after he skipped town to avoid a subpoena. This was before it came to light that the current pope had been so deeply and personally involved in the church’s strategy of delay and obfuscation.) We will soon have a Supreme Court that contains no Protestants and no secularists and which is being asked to rule on a matter central to the religious beliefs of a majority of its members, who are bound to regard the man formerly known as Joseph Ratzinger as the vicar of Christ on earth. If they now take refuge in the lesser claim that he is the bureaucratic head of a foreign government, will that serve to assuage their consciences?

Even if they do decide the matter in this way, they will not succeed in banishing the terrible question of Vatican responsibility for the destruction of so many childhoods and the protection of so many hardened criminals. To give just one example that has not so far had the attention it deserves, the State Department is required by Congress to make an annual report on the human rights record of every government with which we have relations. Yet there is no annual human rights report on the Vatican—or Vatican City or the Holy See, if you prefer. When questioned on this rather glaring lacuna, officials at Foggy Bottom say that for human rights purposes, the Vatican is not a state. It enjoys, for example, only the status of an observer at the United Nations. Very well then, if the Supreme Court rules that it is a sovereign government, then it necessarily follows that it must be subjected to official scrutiny on its rights practices, which in international law include the treatment of children. It will be interesting to see how the Obama administration gets itself off the horns of that dilemma. (It is also perhaps a pity that this question was not resolved earlier, so that we could have had an official U.S. government report on, say, the open complicity of the Catholic Church and the papacy in sheltering the men who organized the genocide in Rwanda.)

Read the rest at: Slate.com


Hitchens And Donohue Debate The Pope’s Connection To The Scandals

Monday, March 29th, 2010

Christopher Hitchens “Leader Of The Church Directly Responsible For Rape & Torture Of Children!”

Hitchens Didn’t Tell You That! Bill Donohue On Church Chils Sex Scandal

Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher (March 26, 2010)

Saturday, March 27th, 2010

The New Commandments – Christopher Hitchens Style

Friday, March 5th, 2010

By Christopher Hitchens Vanity Fair

What do we say when we want to revisit a long-standing policy or scheme that no longer seems to be serving us or has ceased to produce useful results? We begin by saying tentatively, “Well, it’s not exactly written in stone.” (Sometimes this comes out as “not set in stone.”)

By that, people mean that it’s not one of the immutable Tablets of the Law. Thus, more recent fetishes such as the gold standard, or the supposedly holy laws of the free market, can be discarded as not being incised on granite or marble. But what if it is the original stone version that badly needs a re-write? Who will take up the revisionist chisel?

There is in fact a good biblical precedent for doing just that, since the giving of the divine Law by Moses appears in three or four wildly different scriptural versions. (When you hear people demanding that the Ten Commandments be displayed in courtrooms and schoolrooms, always be sure to ask which set. It works every time.) The first and most famous set comes in Exodus 20 but ends with Moses himself smashing the supposedly most sacred artifacts ever known to man: the original, God-dictated panels of Holy Writ. The second edition occurs in Exodus 34, where new but completely different tablets are presented after some heavenly re-write session and are for the first time called “the ten commandments.” In the fifth chapter of Deuteronomy, Moses once more calls his audience together and recites the original Sinai speech with one highly significant alteration (the Sabbath commandment’s justifications in each differ greatly). But plainly discontented with the effect of this, he musters the flock again 22 chapters further on, as the river Jordan is coming into view, and gives an additional set of orders—chiefly terse curses—which are also to be inscribed in stone. As with the gold plates on which Joseph Smith found the Book of Mormon in upstate New York, no trace of any of these original yet conflicting tablets survives.

Thus we are fully entitled to consider them as a work in progress. May there not be some old commandments that could be retired, as well as some new ones that might be adopted? Taking the most celebrated Top 10 in order, we find (I am using the King James, or “Authorized,” version of the text):

I AND II

These commandments are in fact a mixture of related injunctions. I am the lord thy God.… Thou shalt have no other gods before me. This use of capitalization and upper- and lowercase carries the intriguing implication that there perhaps are some other gods but not equally deserving of respect or awe. (Scholars differ about the epoch during which the Jewish people decided on monotheism.) Then comes the prohibition of “graven images” or indeed “any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.” This appears to forbid representational art, just as some Muslims interpret the Koran to forbid the depiction of any human form, let alone any sacred one. (It certainly seems to discourage Christian iconography, with its crucifixes, and statues of virgins and saints.) But the ban is obviously intended as a very emphatic one, since it comes with a reminder that I the lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation.The collective punishment of future children, for the sin of lèse-majesté, may not strike everyone as an especially moral promise.

III

Thou shalt not take the name of the lord thy God in vain, for the lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain. A slightly querulous and repetitive note is struck here, as if of injured vanity. Nobody knows how to obey this commandment, or how to avoid blasphemy or profanity. For example, I say “God alone knows” when I sincerely intend to say “Nobody knows.” Is this ontologically dangerous? Ought not unalterable laws to be plain and unambiguous?

IV

Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. This ostensibly brief commandment goes on for a long time—for four verses in fact—and stresses the importance of a day dedicated to the lord, during which neither one’s children nor one’s servants or animals should be allowed to perform any tasks. (Query: Why is it specifically addressed to people who are assumed to have staff?)

Nobody is opposed to a day of rest. The international Communist movement got its start by proclaiming a strike for an eight-hour day on May 1, 1886, against Christian employers who used child labor seven days a week. But in Exodus 20:8–11, the reason given for the day off is that “in six days the lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day.” Yet in Deuteronomy 5:15 a different reason for the Sabbath observance is offered: “Remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and that the lord thy God brought thee out thence through a mighty hand and by a stretched out arm: therefore the lord thy God commanded thee to keep the sabbath day.” Preferable though this may be, with its reminder of previous servitude, we again find mixed signals here. Why can’t rest be recommended for its own sake? Also, why can’t the infallible and omniscient and omnipotent one make up his mind what the real reason is?

Read the rest: The New Commandments (Vanity Fair)

Hitchens on the Ten Commandments