Shocker: Christopher Hitchens Bashes Mitt Romney Speech

This post is not about Mitt Romney or "The Speech", as some have adoringly referred to it.

It's all about Christopher Hitchens and his contempt for all things religious.

And, God knows, he's never met a major headline referencing someone's faith (especially Christianity) that he didn't see as an opportunity to bash the faithful (especially Christians).

Let's start out with this upper left jab...

According to the admittedly very contradictory scriptures of the New Testament, Jesus of Nazareth warned his disciples and followers that they should expect to be ridiculed and mocked for their faith. After all, how likely was it that God had decided to reveal himself to only a few illiterate peasants in a barbarous backwater?

What better way to make this point than by mocking and ridiculing Christians?

To soothe the sting he softens his next blow with the acknowldgement that the foolish may be, to some degree, well-intentioned.

Those who elected to believe this stuff were quite rightly told to expect a hard time, and the expression "fool for God" or "fool for Christ" has been with us ever since. That concept has some dignity and nobility.

But that patronizing sigh is more of a device than a pat on the back, delivered as part one of a one-two punch.

And now for part two...

Entirely lacking in dignity or nobility (or average integrity) is the well-heeled son of a gold-plated church who wants to assume the pained look of martyrdom only when he is asked if he actually believes what he says. A long time ago, Romney took the decision to be a fool for Joseph Smith, a convicted fraud and serial practitioner of statutory rape who at times made war on the United States and whose cult has been made to amend itself several times in order to be considered American at all. We do not require pious lectures on the American founding from such a man, and we are still waiting for some straight answers from him.

Fair enough. I don't have a problem with anyone being honest about what they believe in. In fact, our Constitution guarantees the honest expression of religious beliefs without the fear of reprisal as long as they do not infringe upon the rights of others. Whether or not Mitt Romney wants to elaborate on his Mormon faith is his choice. Voters can make what they will of it.

But is the contempt expressed in this article limited to wealthy Mormons running for public office? Or is the article just another ripped-from-the-headlines opportunity for Mr. Hitchens to mock and ridicule the "fools for Christ" and poisoners of everything - hoping, eventually, that he and his minions will silence them once and for all?

(I wonder if any Oxford alumni will ever inspire the kind of literature, art, music, or struggle for human dignity that the illiterate peasant-lover from Nazareth did, or that the year of their birth will become the basis of reference for all things that have occurred prior or since - like it was some kind of significant event in the history of civilization)?

Anyway, back to Mr. Hitchens' vast knowledge of all stuff ethereal.

Of course, no one knows more about deism and theism than "the Hitch", or has the capacity to divine what Thomas Jefferson really meant by his unfortunate reference to a "Creator" in the Declaration of Independence...

Romney does not understand the difference between deism and theism, nor does he know the first thing about the founding of the United States. Jefferson's Declaration may invoke a "Creator," but, as he went on to show in the battle over the Virginia Statute on Religious Freedom, he and most of his peers did not believe in a god who intervened in human affairs or in a god who had sent a son for a human sacrifice.

Tell that to Jefferson's second inaugural address:

I shall need, too, the favor of that Being in whose hands we are, who led our fathers, as Israel of old, from their native land and planted them in a country flowing with all the necessaries and comforts of life; who has covered our infancy with His providence and our riper years with His wisdom and power, and to whose goodness I ask you to join in supplications with me that He will so enlighten the minds of your servants, guide their councils, and prosper their measures that whatsoever they do shall result in your good, and shall secure to you the peace, friendship, and approbation of all nations.

Now who's the one that doesn't know the difference between deism and theism?

And what's this contradictory scripture from Mr. Hitchens all about?

This does not mean that freedom of religion is not as important as freedom from it...

Freedom of religion is AS important as freedom from it?

Such a statement could lead readers to conclude that Mr. Hitchens believes religious freedom is an inalienable right worth preserving and protecting for future generations.

Yet this declaration, made recently while promoting the Christmas season release of his latest book, The Portable Atheist, leaves a somewhat different taste...

"It is in the hope of strengthening and arming the resistance to the faith-based, and to faith itself, that this anthology of combat with humanity's oldest enemy is respectfully offered."

Which just goes to show that the Enlightened can be just as disingenuous, i.e., imperfect as the rest of us.

Comments

[Jeff H]

I'm beginning to think that Hitchens' "having it right" on the issue of Islamo-Nazi terrorism is simply part-and-parcel with his hatred of all things religious (well, aside from the religion of atheism).

Now, as to what little "substance" he has in this particular piece: his gross lack of historical knowledge concerning the Biblical accounts is made obvious by his description of Jesus' disciples as "a few illiterate peasants". Like too many liberals, his contempt for successful businessmen comes through loud and clear. Peter lived in a well-appointed, large house, indicative of his socio-economic status as someone with money. When the disciples said "We have given up everything to follow [Jesus]", they meant more than simply their comfortable bumpkin lives. They'd given up successful careers, money, and social status.

If Hitchens died tomorrow, I'd shed no tears.

[Mrs. R.]

Jeff,

I used to like/respect him somewhat, though I've never found his arrogance particularly appealing. But it's difficult liking or having any respect for someone who's constantly hurling vicious insults at you and accusing you, via your faith, of Poisoning Everything.

He's certainly free to do so (and to make a lucrative career out of it) but that doesn't mean that those he's attempting to belittle and demonize have to like it, or take it.

[Wry Mouth]

N.B. for those who like paradox -- here in California, the state "hate crime" / non-discrimination laws have been modified to explicitly list "agnosticism and atheism" as RELIGIOUS beliefs.

When this set of laws kicks in for students in public and private schools this January, I am looking forward to several people's heads imploding -- perhaps Hitchens will be among them -- as they try to "separate church and state" under the new state guidelines.

Ahhh, bliss: if ALL beliefs, including NON-belief, are religious, who's gonna be left to govern after we kick all the religious out?

Yum!

Hitchens joins my list, along with Dawkins (after reviewing his "God Delusion"), of atheists who disappoint me with the shallowness of their analysis. At least Penn Gillette is *funny*, if not thougtful!

[richard]

he's human, ergo.....capable of going from "spot on" to "dumbass" in five seconds like all the rest of us.

as for me and mine, we'll keep old wasp-y Jesus and "santy clause-y" God and the "will-o-the-wisp-y" Holy Ghost as a raison d'etre in this funny old world.

you want embarrasing? i'm episcopal. gay bishops....sheesh. stay in the closet, bishop gene.

i digress.

God bless. :)

[Damn Yankee Infidel]

"According to the admittedly very contradictory scriptures of the New Testament, Jesus of Nazareth warned his disciples and followers that they should expect to be ridiculed and mocked for their faith. After all, how likely was it that God had decided to reveal himself to only a few illiterate peasants in a barbarous backwater?"

At the crossroads of a great empire, that the culture of which has been emulated to the present day and who's influence will be felt for the foreseeable future and by which the revelations of God to mankind through his beloved Son would be spread to the corners of the world form this backwater.

If Mr. Hitchens would allow himself a shred of humility, maybe he would see the work of a greater intelligence than ours, one that is omnipotent and omnipresent.

[Sean M.]

Not being religious myself, I suppose I can cut Hitchens a little more slack than others might be inclined to, but even I'm getting tired of the sanctimonious atheism that he and others (like Dawkins) have been touting (or, should I say, preaching?) for the last few years.

[Mrs. R.]

but even I'm getting tired of the sanctimonious atheism that he and others (like Dawkins) have been touting (or, should I say, preaching?) for the last few years.

Thank you, Sean, for sharing your annoyance with Dawkins and Hitchens from a different perspective.

I think most Americans feel the same way. People of faith don't want atheists-on-a-mission knocking down their doors any more than nonbelievers want religious extremists knocking down theirs. Actually, I guess most people don't much care for either scenario.