Christopher Hitchens, 1949-2011
It may seem odd for a Pagan to pay tribute to someone who considered faith a personal weakness and religion a social malady. It is perhaps also unusual for a princess to pay tribute to this man, who was a vocal anti-monarchist.* I disagreed with Hitch, as he was known by his fans, on many points. But I found him provocative, informed, and honest. And drunk…he was often lit in public, but in a clever Ron White (with a British accent) sort of way, not a downward-spiral Charlie Sheen (with any accent) sort of way. Most importantly, Christopher Hitchens was a constant champion of human rights and independent thought, an admirable trait for any public figure. He was one of the Four Horsemen of New Atheism, leaders who took atheism from an “absence of faith†stance to a “presence of reason†mantra.
“What the New Atheists share is a belief that religion should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized and exposed by rational argument wherever its influence arises.”– The rise of the ‘New Atheists’ 2006
By all accounts, if Christopher Hitchens were to have met me, he would have scoffed at my spirituality and balked at my beliefs. Also, he would have argued fundamentally that I am not funny. He believed it was a biological imperative for men to have humor (to attract women), but there was no evolutionary cause for women to yuck it up — and so it wasn’t possible. I am so not joking — he really said (wrote) that. So why — as a practicing Pagan and a woman who (sometimes) thinks she’s funny — do I dig Hitch? I’m starting to wonder that myself.
Maybe I should back up a bit.
I came to Paganism by way of ambivalence → agnosticism → Wicca → ambivalence → Heathenry. I was never an atheist because there was always something deep down I couldn’t explain (still can’t) that pulls me towards the spiritual. All along this journey there were conversations with deeply religious people who tried to convince me I would forever be in the dark if I didn’t embrace their version of light. Sometimes these conversations were dispassionate and friendly. Other times, these conversations were highly emotional and ended with my companion filled with angst and genuine worry for my soul and with me filled with indignation and disappointment that I couldn’t articulate my position better. I felt like my companion(s) and I were completely demagnetized with one another when it came to the pull towards spirituality.
On this journey, there have also been conversations with deeply non-religious people. And as much as we disagreed on the topic of faith and its relationship to reason, I never left those conversations feeling judged, at least not in an “eternal damnation†sort of way. Strange as it sounds, I felt more of a magnetic pull towards these companions than towards people of faith. So, I have always lent my ear to atheist commentary – perhaps because I was seeking this old feeling of being challenged but not judged.
I did not find this feeling with Christopher Hitchens. He challenged me alright. But he judged me, too. But by the time I discovered Hitch, I was in a place where being judged for my faith didn’t rankle my feathers or muss my hair (or crown). I was in a place where I could listen to faith-oriented arguments (be they religious or non-religious) and cull value solely on my admiration for passionate, well-informed arguments that made me think critically about why I believe what I believe. I assign value to arguments that keep me honest in my faith, the motivations behind and the consequences of my faith-related choices. And on this, Christopher Hitchens delivered in spades.
He stood up to religious right fundamentalists and kicked the pants off of them in public debates (just ask the Oracle for “Christopher Hitchens debate†for a look see). [Here’s a brief video example. Warning: This will open with sound.] He called extremist religions out for what they are — dogma that legitimizes the marginalizing women’s rights, sexual freedom and the economic prospects of the poor and disempowered.** If you need an argument to defend equal (human) rights, policies that treat gays equally, or free speech you can look to Hitch. [Warning: These links are video links that will open with sound.] One of the things I admired most about Hitchens was that he wasn’t afraid to criticize any public or cherished figure, alive or not. Here is an example…and it’s a doozy.
“MT [Mother Teresa] was not a friend of the poor. She was a friend of poverty. She said that suffering was a gift from God. She spent her life opposing the only known cure for poverty, which is the empowerment of women and the emancipation of them from a livestock version of compulsory reproduction.†— Christopher Hitchens 2003
I don’t know, maybe I still have a thing for “bad boys†but I find this kind of irreverence captivating, even exhilarating.*** To me, this is highly provocative, even vitriolic, but highly thought-provoking nonetheless. I know Mother Teresa did everything she could within the confines of her faith to alleviate suffering and promote health. I think Hitch’s point is that Mother Teresa limited her actions to the confines of her faith; that she did not advocate for women’s control over their fertility because that was not aligned with the Catholic church. There is a good deal of research that links family size to persistent poverty.☨ Does he sound like an asshat? Yes. Do you have any doubts about his opinion on the matter? No. Could he have been more diplomatic? Yes. Could he have been more clear? No.
The true value of this quote for me is not about Catholicism or what Mother Teresa did or didn’t do for the poor. The true value lies in Hitchens’ unabashed questioning of actions based on faith. I don’t want to lose that perspective in my own practice. I don’t ever want to value doctrine over the human condition. I chose Paganism as my spiritual compass, not as a written map for my decisions and actions.
I remain torn, though. Like I said, Hitch would pretty much call me an idiot and laugh at my lifestyle. But I don’t value his personal opinion of me or of my faith. I value his willingness to stand up to doctrine against a tide of complacency. I value his dedication to identifying injustice and pointing to the culprit no matter how uncomfortable it makes us. [Even if the culprit is me and my faith. Heck, especially if the culprit is me and my faith!] Obviously, this critical bravery is not unique to Hitchens or to atheists in general but can be found in people of almost any faith. It just so happens that atheists see faith as a “tide of complacency.†Obviously, I disagree with this view of faith. But I don’t fully dissent. with this view. I think it is very easy for people of faith to let go of reason in favor of doctrine. I don’t want to be one of those people. It’s not a very Pagan thing to do. And it’s not a very Princess thing to do. And I thank Christopher Hitchens for reminding me I need be a vigilant free thinker.
What do you think readers? Was Christopher Hitchens a beacon for free thought? Or a black hole of contempt? Do these things have to be mutually exclusive?
* But I see myself as a benign royal, so I don’t think Hitch would mind my regal leanings. Also, I am not a “real†princess — more a figurative head than a figure head, if you will.
** To be fair, Hitch did not see a difference between “extremist†religion and “not extremist†religion. As I understand it, he really just saw religion of any kind as a festering social wound.
*** I don’t. Have a thing for bad boys. Not for a long time.
☨This site (from the ABDI Institute) provides a good, evidenced-based overview of the relationship between poverty and family size.
+ Featured image, Christopher Hitchens in Las Vegas, 2007.
6 comments
Charles says:
Feb 24, 2012
Never liked him. Read some of his essays, heard a number of statements. He’s eloquent, clever, witty, but just as shortsighted to the idiocy his viewpoints could be extended to (women with no sense of humor? really?) as most of his religious targets were to theirs. As far as human rights go, check out his support of torture in the War on Terror(/Grammar). He was an atheist fundamentalist with all of the bombast and condemnation of his faith-based counterparts. For someone who claimed (correctly) that religion doesn’t measure scientific truth, he smashed his framework onto everyone and everything he came across.
Jax says:
Feb 28, 2012
Ha! I’m not a tremendous fan, either, for a lot of the same reasons. I’m opposed to narrow-minded fundamentalism whether religious or anti-religious (or political or issue-based or…). But then The Princesses are not going to agree on everything, and we all find inspiration in imperfect models (as nothing and no one is “perfect” – whatever that even means). I know GG’s been like… “Grrrrrl what you talkin’ bout?” more than once with a few things I’ve said!
GG says:
Feb 28, 2012
I’ve been thinking about your comment, Charles. I know when Hitchens came out in support of the war in Iraq, he surprised a lot of his peers. But he hated Saddam Hussein enough that it seemed he’d rather risk loosing some friends than loosing the war.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Long_Short_War:_The_Postponed_Liberation_of_Iraq
As for him supporting torture, I absolutely disagree with his stance. And I am also confused by it. He was voluntarily waterboarded so he could chime in on the debate on whether or not it was torture and wrote, “if waterboarding does not constitute torture, then there is no such thing as torture.”
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/08/hitchens200808
Yet in the same article, he argues for torture in the face of (filmed) beheadings and other implement-focused torture. I can’t tell though if his argument for torture (after being waterboarded) is his own or if he is presenting someone else’s argument for torture. Because later in the article he presents someone else’s argument against torture and doesn’t dispute it. So, I don’t know what to make of Hitchens’ thoughts on torture. All I can say is that I agree with Malcolm Nance’s stand against it (which is explained in this article).
As Jax points out, I’m pulling from Christopher Hitchens what I want to pull. I’m culling what I find useful and ditching the rest — a skill I’ve developed in my professional life that has some personal applications. 🙂 Hitchens was not trying to make friends, not trying to win favor and not trying to be popular. I think we need “dark yins” like Hitchens as much as we need “light yangs” like the Dalai Lama. To provoke us, to make us think critically, to make us question what we really value. And that’s why I appreciate Christopher Hitchens.
1984 says:
Jul 15, 2014
He did not say that women have no humor, it’s that they didn’t need it.
He did not support torture at all, but he was indeed for the removal of Saddam, he even said that it was something USA had to do as it had so long supported this dictator who did an awfully lot of bad stuff, and it would likely have continued with his sons in power after Saddam had left the scene. Not a perfect stance by any means, but neither is leaving Saddam in power. Can we say with certainty that there was one good way of dealing with it? Seems to me that is not so easy.
What’s an atheist fundamentalist btw? He said in many interviews that he has no quarrel with the more liberal minded believers who do not force their views onto the masses (I can give you a source), but he was right to point out that this in general doesn’t happen because many religious cannot keep their faith to themselves.
He could have pointed out the idiocy of the “war on terror” but never really did. There are studies done by the likes of Rand corp which concludes that the use of a military is counterproductive. Here Hitchens could have done a lot better. He held views similar to Orwell that it is a responsibility to try to rid the world of tyrannical leaders, and he wasn’t the only the one. Had the American public for instance not so easily bought into the lies about WMDs etc then it is likely that the Iraq war would never have happened either. What responsibility does the public have in electing George W Bush who surrounded himself with PNAC empire builders? Without or without Hitchens the war would have happened. But it would not have happened if the people cared to get themselves informed. And herein lies the ultimate fault.
GG says:
Jun 17, 2015
Hi 1984! Thank you for reading and for commenting. On your first point about women and humor…Hitchens argument was based in evolutionary theory (sort of), but he articulated his argument in a 2007 Vanity Fair article title, “Why Women Aren’t Funny.” [I can’t find the original article, but the letters to the editor reference the article title, http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2008/04/hitchens_letters200804. You can find a reprint of the article here, https://tayiabr.wordpress.com/2014/11/06/why-women-arent-funny-christopher-hitchens/.%5D
All of the commotion around this issue was bluster, IMO. I can’t imagine Hitchens really gave a damn about this issue, save that he had a damn good time ruffling a lot of feathers. He said himself, “So what has been the achievement of my essay? It’s been to make sexier women try harder to amuse me. Well, that was my whole plan to start of with” (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8S692f1tnuQ).
As for the rest of your comment, on more serious issues, I don’t disagree with you. I cannot speak for Charles and what he meant by a “fundamentalist atheist,” but I interpreted that to mean Hitchens had a “my way or the highway” position on faith. So, yes, please share your source on Hitchens thoughts about “liberal minded believers.”
1984 says:
Jun 17, 2015
There is or at least was a youtube video in which he talks about it more. He may or may not be wrong about that, personally I don’t think the topic is that important. He was 100% for women’s rights and correctly stated that women need to be empowered.
“Hitchens had a “my way or the highway†position on faith”
Here’s the link:
http://www.portlandmonthlymag.com/news-and-profiles/people-and-profiles/articles/christopher-hitchens
You’ll find his comment at the last discussion part. There are others but it would take too much time to find everything.
Same with Dawkins, there are videos in which he has long talks with religious believers, priests too. But they are not fundamentalists and do for instance accept evolution… so the big quarrel of fundamentalist stance against religion simply is not there. And Hitchens did state that he wouldn’t want to rid the world of religion either…he liked the conversations a lot. This comment is in one documentary…sadly I have forgotten the name of it.
Those who mostly oppose religion are the religious themselves, you can still see this with fighting between different groups of believers. They more than happily light candles in favor of their own faith but do not stop at ridiculing or even killing those who give a different answer to the god question. Ultimately religion is a divisive thing, it’s not a uniter.