Christopher Hitchens is dead. So I’m going to say what some other Christians are thinking, but won’t say.
Christopher Hitchens has died.
There is no doubt that he was brilliant man in many respects and perhaps this explains why the Christian Interweb is ablaze with tributes and “RIP” sentiments for him.
The irony is that Hitchens was himself no fan of the polite obituary.
The fact of the matter is that Hitchens detested the church and our God and was the most prolific anti-Christian polemicist on the planet. He wrote some plain nasty material and was in fact an insufferable bore on the subject of religion. In all honestly I used to cringe at the fantastical expectation of some for a deathbed conversion.
Squeezed almost silently in between the fawning platitudes today, I glimpsed stories of Christians brutally murdered in Iraq and Nigeria. I’ll be frank, it saddens me that so much Christian ink will be spilt over Hitchens’ death, when in front of our noses martyrs will be made today without so much as a sidewards glance by many of their brothers and sisters.
I’m sad for the family of Hitchens at this time, but the fact of the matter is, if we do believe the tenets of our faith, then we have to accept the fact that Hitchens will be granted exactly as he desired; namely, existence without God.
Tags: Atheism Secularism Humanism, News
December 16th, 2011 at 10:47 am
I simply commend him to our gracious God who desires that none be lost, and trust that he will find answers there.
I fully understand why some reject the nasty God of nasty believers. If they never encounter His Love, nor see it in us, I’m sure that God will be kinder to them than to us.
December 16th, 2011 at 11:04 am
I too understand some would rail against polemics of the harshest and more unloving side of fundamentalism.
But surely we should heed our Lord’s own words. When He said, if we deny Him before men, then He will deny us before the Father? (Matt 10:32-33)
December 16th, 2011 at 12:41 pm
Should we not also spare a thought for the one million Iraqis that died as a result of the US invasion, the majority of whom were Muslim civilians?
December 16th, 2011 at 12:57 pm
I am not familiar with Hitchen’s diatribes against the church – although I have heard of his name. I must admit that the likes of Dawkins and Hitchens have never interested me because I made up my mind a long time ago that there is surely a God.
However, when all is said and done one does wonder how much atheism is a consequence of the church’s/religion’s conduct through the centuries – the wars, the inquisitions and so on. On e look at the Sheites and the Sunnis is surely enough to keep all men and women away from such a God? Perhaps we judge Hitchins and others too unkindly?
December 16th, 2011 at 12:58 pm
I’ll be frank, it saddens me that so much Christian ink will be spilt over Hitchens’ death, when in front of our noses martyrs will be made today without so much as a sidewards glance by many of their brothers and sisters.
Let’s not forget that, as Hitchens so often pointed out, most of the killing in the world is done by the religious, including under the declared divine guidance of Bush Jnr and Blair. Hitchens was against all religions, not just Christianity.
December 16th, 2011 at 1:02 pm
And let’s not forget that Hitchens was a strong supporter of the Iraq war.
December 16th, 2011 at 1:08 pm
What I find incredible (although not unexpected) is the amount of revelling by “Christians” about the fate and torment of Hitchens in hell. Its the same sort of people who send out nasty emails to bloggers, but its none the less shocking.
Interestingly Hitchens is on my “top bloke” list along with a number of prominent evangelicals and the current pope. I am nothing if eclectic in my tastes!
December 16th, 2011 at 3:03 pm
I’m sure there are other Christians who share your views webmaster, but I think that misunderstands the man as a whole person.
With the death of Christopher Hitchens we have lost a brilliant and principled journalist, who wrote on many diverse subjects, of which religion was but one. He could be something of a contrarian, and often supported the more controversial side in an argument, but he could write with great fluency, and was very accessible. He was aligned with the so called ‘New Atheists’ and this attracted much dislike and scorn from both sides of the belief fence, but he argued with conviction, and if he said something that offended or upset people, it was because he was uncompromising. Oh that more journalists were so principled in their convictions. I only met him briefly, but I can attest to what many others have reported – that in person he was invariably polite and respectful.
December 16th, 2011 at 3:17 pm
For me Hitchens was a breath of fresh air. He had a great intellect, and the refreshingly incisive ability to cut through wooly thinking. That he said what he though offended some, but not a few of those deserved to be offended. Those who rejoice in his demise show themselves as small people, and certainly not Christian.
December 16th, 2011 at 10:13 pm
We’re not the judge of hearts. We have no idea. We ask for mercy for his soul and that’s all, really.
December 17th, 2011 at 4:13 am
What I find incredible (although not unexpected) is the amount of revelling by “Christians” about the fate and torment of Hitchens in hell. Its the same sort of people who send out nasty emails to bloggers, but its none the less shocking.
Gordon, where have you seen this sort of stuff? I ask because I was actually expecting to see it, and have been pleasantly surprised at the lack of it- maybe its just the circles I move in.
December 17th, 2011 at 10:50 am
In hoc signo vinces†
Simon Schama on Newsnight said that the polemics against religion from Christopher Hitchens and his intellectual contemporaries was provoked by the Salman Rushdie fatwa, if so why is the impression left after 30 years that the weight of their attack was against christianity?
December 17th, 2011 at 11:54 am
If he’s right – I suggest because if religion in general is a false belief system, it makes sense to start in your own backyard.
December 17th, 2011 at 2:05 pm
What I dislike most is the stereotyping and generalisation which occurs from BOTH sides. Religionists are not all bad any more than atheists are all good. I do indeed see much that is bad about religion and much good coming from atheism and secular humanism – but there is good AND bad in all people and all belief systems. Likewise with truth and morality.
If there was more willingness to judge people and systems by their actions and outcomes perhaps we’d all get along much better.
December 17th, 2011 at 2:31 pm
To D_M. The question must be: from where do these values of good and bad come, that may be imputed to religion, atheism etc? A source that trumps the lot? If so, we need to know about it.
December 17th, 2011 at 2:34 pm
I knew not of the man, and agree with Marc’s points.
It was right that Simian honoured him for, as I was reminded yesterday, we’re all made in God’s image and thus have various God-given talents and abilities. How we use them is our choice and responsibility for we also have free will. I noted in today’s Obituary and feature in today’s Telegraph that some have been praying for Hitchens.
I know many may consider my remarks as claptrap. From profound personal experience, however, I’m sure that intercession will definitely bless him because I, too, was once similarly ‘targeted’.
As an unbeliever I chose to reject the Gospel of Christ but, without any warning whatsoever, my soul was demanded of me that very night. I was given a glimpse of my future post-mortem existence yet the gracious mercy of Jesus Christ himself rescued me from the ‘trapdoor’.
So perhaps Christopher too had a moment to repent and choose life everlasting? I do hope so, for his sake…
December 17th, 2011 at 3:49 pm
@Hocus Pocus,
Could it be that the camp followers and proponents of the god delusion are afraid to unequivocally challenge islam in their own backyard or anywhere else for fear of being labelled islamophobic/racist or from having a fatwa slapped on their heads – intellectual dishonesty at a premium they are delluding themselves.
December 17th, 2011 at 6:35 pm
@ Hocus Pocus
In a plural society there is no system of values that ultimately trumps the lot. That’s why we base our society on mutual tolerance, respect, reason and democracy. It’s a kind of ethical version of the ‘Golden Rule’ found in one form or another in most religions, philosophies and ideologies.
December 18th, 2011 at 12:39 am
Hocus Pocus: Hitchens’ basic tenet was “do unto others as you would have them do to you”, and it seems plausible that this approach to interpersonal behaviour would have had survival benefit for the species long before it got religion. A more complex morality, including altruism, could have been built on this, based on the same survival values, leading to our current humanist moral framework. The seeds of this moral
behaviour have been observed among some of the higher primates.
December 18th, 2011 at 12:50 am
D_M.
There has to be some level of wisdom that allows you to judge what is good and what is bad in each of these competing systems. I think the Golden Rule is a red herring in this context. If you can’t say where this higher wisdom comes from, you’re not saying anything, sorry. If it’s just your subjective opinion, the comment has little, most likely no, persuasive power.
December 18th, 2011 at 8:43 am
@ Hocus Pocus
So what’s wrong with subjective opinion? That’s what moralists call autonomy. It means that as human beings we have to think for ourselves about the difference between right and wrong. Amazingly, some would say, we more or less come up with a remarkably similar set of ethics – which some would suggest shows that there may be something more absolute behind our autonomy. Whatever, we all have to decide how to live and collectively we make collective decisions about how to live in community.
December 18th, 2011 at 9:14 am
Well, you could at least declare your point of view so we know what to make of comments like, ” there is good AND bad in all people and all belief systems.” This can mean anything you want to read into it, coming out of thin air. But, as the sage said, “Leave it like that”.
December 18th, 2011 at 11:03 am
Guys,
The ‘nature and source of morality’ is a huge topic and perhaps should be argued on a separate thread. There is also a significant amount of literature on the topic – on both sides of the argument.
December 18th, 2011 at 11:47 am
It is relevant to this thread because of the ‘atheists have no (basis for) morality’ argument you hear from some believers (though not this one). A mirror to the ‘believers are not rational’ argument you hear from some atheists….
December 18th, 2011 at 2:07 pm
Goy:
Sorry for the delay. I think you’ve got a point. That would make main stream Christianity a soft target, and if successful, leave more power in the hands of fundamentalists.
December 18th, 2011 at 2:46 pm
Goy’s point is not entirely true, though. There are many Christians brave enough to highlight the dangers of fundamentalism in any religion – both in Christianity and Islam. Try the work of Patrick Sookhdeo, for example, or Canon Andrew White in Baghdad.
OTOH I firmly believe that not giving due respect to the benign iterations of religion in its more liberal and tolerant forms plays into the hands of the fundamentalists and encourages radicalisation and extremism. Respect, of course does not mean being unable to criticise – but doing so in a constructive and courteous manner.
December 20th, 2011 at 8:05 pm
@Drew_Mac,
The target of my comment was the camp followers and proponents of the god delusion – proponents who challenge christianity but are silent and deliberately vague in opposing the religion of jihad.
December 21st, 2011 at 12:49 pm
– proponents who challenge christianity but are silent and deliberately vague in opposing the religion of jihad.
Not true Goy. For a topical example, look no further than Hitchen’s “God is not Great” to see what he writes about Islam. He pulls no punches. Or the way so many prominent atheists stood firm in support of Salman Rushdie, despite the personal threats to which this led.
The fact is that for many of us in the UK, Islam is not something we encounter in our daily lives, whereas the physical Christian Church is part of the fabric. Muslims make up less than 5% of the population, and militant Islamists are an even smaller number.
Moreover, there is a long tradition within Western Christianity to question dogma and practice through intellectual commentary and analysis, so it is not surprising that this continues, regardless of different traditions within Muslim societies.
December 21st, 2011 at 8:50 pm
@Simian,
The context of what I said was weight and impression – if so why is the impression left after 30 years that the weight of their attack was against christianity?
“Islam is not something we encounter in our daily lives, … “
You have stumbled upon an interesing point a subject that has interested me for a long time, how much has islam seeped into the national consciousness and influenced or shifted British politics and society?
January 1st, 2012 at 5:35 am
When the righteous prosper, the city rejoices; when the wicked perish, there are shouts of joy.
Proverbs 11:10