A Walk on the Politically Incorrect Side

…it is what all know and will admit as readily to be the fact--that in the temples adulteries are arranged, that at the altars pimping is practised, that often in the houses of the temple-keepers and priests, under the sacrificial fillets, and the sacred hats, and the purple robes, amid the fumes of incense, deeds of licentiousness are done…
--Tertullian, The Apology Chapter 15

If Christopher Hitchens were to read this, he would probably remark at how little things have changed in the last 2000 years, despite the advent of the printing press, the internal combustion engine, the acceptance of the germ theory of disease and the exploration of space. It may seem like a cheap shot, but it is part and parcel of Hitchens’ view on religion of any and all stripes: it poisons everything, and it doesn’t matter whose religion it is.

Hitchens opens his book with the account of how, as a child, he began to doubt then to disbelieve the teachings of the Church of England in which he was brought up. He “subjects” the reader to this in order to demonstrate that his atheism does not arise out of personal tragedy, abuse or drug use. Early on, he just found religious claims absurd.

He summarizes his objections to religion: 1) It misrepresents the origins of man (I’m sure he meant to include woman here, too) and the cosmos; 2) It maximizes servility and solipsism; 3) It is both a cause and a result of a dangerous sexual repression; and 4) It is grounded in wishful thinking.

The writing is often angry and the author does not take any pains to spare feelings. He decries the senseless violence that religion can engender with what seemed to me genuine compassion for its many victims. But with this compassion comes unapologetic contempt for those who perpetrate the violence, and this, I think is the source of most of the offense—among those who take offense at his writing.

The range of topics is wide, both with the expected and the unexpected. Creationism/intelligent design interferes with a good education. Religion is not healthful for one’s body or soul. It does not bolster morality, but perverts it, and can provide justification for the most horrendous acts, such as flying airplanes into office buildings or bombing abortion clinics. The Old Testament is a “nightmare,” exceeded in evil only by the New Testament. The Koran is “borrowed” from Jewish and Christian writings. Above all else when it comes to religion, leave the children out of it.

There is one short chapter with the interesting title of “A Coda: How Religions End,” which is an account of the Sabbatai Sevi movement of the 1600’s. Sabbatai Sevi was a “false Messiah,” who had caught the imagination of Jews across the Mediterranean and the Levant. Eventually, he approached the Ottoman Emperor [correction: Sultan] to ask for liberation of the Jews. In response, the authorities told him to convert to Islam or die. He converted. The movement fell apart, although some members still believed, seeing the conversion as a ruse, or a means to become a greater messiah.

It certainly is a cautionary tale, both for those who would believe in a messiah, and those in authority who don’t need a new religion to spring out of a martyrdom, but it doesn’t really say much about the way religions end in general. That was a bit of a disappointment.

Another thing that raised an eyebrow for me is the claim in page 125 that John Wycliffe, Miles Coverdale and William Tyndale were burned alive for translating the Bible from Latin to English. Wycliffe and Coverdale died natural deaths, as far as I can determine. Tyndale was indeed, burned at the stake, but after he’d been strangled (a small consolation, that). Wycliffe’s remains were dug up some 30 years after his death, burned and tossed into the river, but this was obviously long after it would have mattered to him.

This is not a major error, obviously, but it does speak to a bit of careless editing. I hardly consider myself an expert in history (though I’ve read a few pieces of Wycliffe’s writing and they make Hitchens’ seem like sweet nothings), and wasn’t looking for mistakes. Conceivably, there are others that I didn’t pick up on.

Reading God is Not Great saddened me at times, infuriated at other times and amused every so often. You have to hand it to a guy who can dis both Mother Teresa and the Dalai Lama in the same book.

Hitchens ends his book with a call for a new Enlightenment, “which will base itself on the proposition that the proper study of mankind is man, and woman.” (…isn’t this a sort of revival?) While this is within the reach of the average person, Hitchens doesn’t see this happening any time soon. “We first have to transcend our prehistory, and escape the gnarled hands which reach out to drag us back to the catacombs and the reeking altars and the guilty pleasures of subjection and abjection. ‘Know yourself,’ said the Greeks, gently suggesting the consolation of philosophy. To clear the mind for this project, it has become necessary to know the enemy, and prepare to fight it.” (p. 283)

While there can be no doubt that there are those who would use religion to oppress or eliminate those who didn’t agree with their particular take on things, there are also those who use religion as comfort, or to create community without oppressing others. While I may not personally see the world their way (and I don’t have to), I see the virtue of letting them live their lives in peace. The freedom to live according to the dictates of one’s conscience is one of the things that I hold dear.

As for recommending this book, I think I will, even with its faults, its anger and lack of tack. Under all that, there is an honest cry for compassion that is worth hearing.

I beg the reader’s pardon (those who have made it this far) for such a long review.