Just to prove yet again that we're an open (and openly reckless) blog, I'm going to post an almost entirely unedited letter that was sent to us by a random, unknown reader.
Reader Andrew Neiman reacts to Hitchens's recent Newsweek article on bringing the Pope to Justice (and the intro to GOD IS NOT GREAT). Emphasis is mine. Except the capital letters routine. That's Andrew's. - Mark
Let's assume that, in spite of NEWSWEEK'S shoddy fact-checking regarding the details of this scandal, that Cardinal Law and--by extension--Pope Benedict XVI (Ratzenburg)--have been complicit in covering up numerous cases of abuse of power, of sexual misconduct on the part of many clergymen...this being the case, it nonetheless came as no surprise to me that Mr. Hitchens is author of GOD IS NOT GREAT, according to the byline at the end of his--as one blogger has rightly called it--"diatribe."
How ironic that this editorial is labeled by NEWSWEEK editors JUSTICE and RELIGION. The Justice Hitchens would have is the wholesale destruction of the church, as strongly implied and overtly stated in his aforementioned book. (I read as much of the intro as Amazon would allow without my actually having purchased said polemic.) It seems to me that one of the great advantages of being a secular humanist/atheist (as Hitchens claims himself to be) would be to eschew the wrath of the God of Judgment, to seek “restorative” justice instead of mere “retributive” justice (a distinction a healer friend of mine engaged in, among other things, Non-Violent Communication, recently explicated). I'm not sure what that would look like exactly in this instance, but it was clear to me in reading this polemic (I'm here referring to the article, not the book, though that too is very much a polemic) that Hitchens in not interested in healing and supporting the faithful members of the Catholic church through this crisis; he evidences neither compassion for them (in this article) nor respect for them (in his book.) Though there may be no higher cause than the protection and advocacy of children, especially those preyed on by those in authority, I must admit I was troubled by his tone, curious as to the seeming hatred with which it was laced. (Again, I was working off the misguided(?) assumption, before reading a number of blog entries, that his facts were in line.)
Ought a man who loathes “religion” while adhering to a childish vision of “Justice” (Hithchens mentions Crime-cum-Punishment in his article; and, interestingly, lauds Dostoyevski in his book; he also seems outright scornful of the possibility of contrition and forgiveness without punishment) be permitted to contribute to the RELIGION and JUSTICE section of a reputable periodical? In his book Hitchens admits to having been “writing this book my whole life.” Indeed, his uber-agenda as a writer seems to be dismantling any and all religious institutions, reveal injustices (of which the church and other religious institutions are no doubt guilty), and cast aspersions on faith of all kinds, except for his own, which, again, in his book, he refers to using more romantic—or at least less controversial terms— such as “awe” and “wonder” and “mystery.”
Hitchens exalts literature (as opposed to scripture) as the source of these apparently well-reasoned sensations. I hate to break it to you, Hitchens, but Shakespeare is as celebratory of Christianity as he is skeptical of (many) Christians; then again, he wrote plays which are decidedly not diatribes, but rather elegant and textured dialectics. I should know: I daresay I have more Shakespeare committed to memory than your average Oxford Lit professor. (Or at least all of your Dartmoor teachers combined.) [I think Hitchens does also, or at least he pretends to. Let's have a challenge. - editor]
I am not a Conservative Catholic. Or even a Christian. I am a very liberal Jewish Theater artist. And while Hitchens cites Freud for his purposes, I am more likely to quote Jung, who contended, as a man of science, that the contents of the collective unconscious exert their relatively autonomous agendas such that reason, no matter how subtle and sophisticated, will topple in an instant in the face of primal or deep-seated forces immune to the machinations of reason. But I swerve off-topic in the hopes of rescuing or at least defending the faithful, of which I consider myself a member. (“Reason and love keep little company together nowadays; the more shame some honest neighbor will not make them friends.” --W.S.) A dear friend of mine—a Catholic Phd candidate at Northwestern University in Drama—travels to St. Louis this weekend to attend her niece's first communion, which will, I'm sure, mark a beautiful and important right of passage deeply meaningful for the entire family. “Grounded on well-wishing,” Mr. Hitchens? Perhaps. Or maybe a longstanding response to a true and beautiful call of the collective soul to welcome a young person into a sacred covenant.
I'd say I feel sorry for Mr. Hitchens. But I don't. He has a wonderful command of the English language. (He is, after all, English.) And we need whistle-blowers of his caliber, of his wit and insight and perseverance. But his thinking is nonetheless one-sided, (and rather short-sided), a manner of thinking which I suppose can befall anyone engaged in the profession of composing polemics; but Mr. Hitchens ultimately comes across as, well, no less petulant than the indignant child he describes himself to have been in the introduction of GOD IS NOT GREAT, merely (“presumably”) rebelling and kicking things to the ground, rarely building, and failing to create, failing to heal, failing to dig deeper.
I am tempted here to continue to extol religious virtues such as cleansing in order to attain peace and humility, living deeply through metaphor, communing with the ultimate, and making oneself and one's world holy, but I am more accustomed to writing plays than diatribes. And Mr. Hitchens will or will not do what he damn well pleases.
As a post script, however, allow me to posit a thing or two more:
Hitchens writes, in GOD IS NOT GREAT, that his chance at “wholesome belief was not destroyed by child abuse or brutish indoctrination.” Yet his anecdotes of simplistic, human-centric schoolmarms and sadistic closet-case homosexuals (I myself was psychically abused by a closeted Southern Baptist teacher who I, too, have long since forgiven as a result of his positive contributions to my development) suggest exactly that: abuse and brutality, however subtle. (More subtle than the serpent as you yourself admit.)
I speak for the innocent, for the truly holy, for the divine potential in all of us. As for the guilty, well, Hitchens seems to have attended to them with stunning scrupulousness.
I heard a quote the other day: “For those who believe, no proof is necessary; for those who don't, no proof is possible.” While this quote may weaken my overall argument/point/theme, I think it speaks to the frustration between camps: Mr. Hitchens, you are outraged by any and all debasements of reason; while the faithful (myself included?) are outraged by your wholesale dismissal of the validity of relating to truth non-rationally. Or am I overstating that which you overstate? For contrarily—redemptively—you admit Shakespeare—equal parts believer and doubter, gut-level intuitive and high-minded rationalist—into your pantheon.
It is high time for Christopher Hitchens to be arrested. I've had some conversations with our lawyers in Dubai. If he dares to enter certain states, the man is through. As an advisor to the Bush administration's destruction of Iraq and Afghanistan, we consider Hitchens an accomplice to war crimes. As he himself admitted, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, he was invited to the White House to give a presentation of his views on WOT. And by all accounts, he charmed them to hell and won them over. He and his buddy Paul Wolfowitz. This is how the tragedy all began. As everyone knows, Hitchens was perhaps the only person who could make the case in print and on TV without sounding like a total buffoon.
Indeed that is a little mentioned string to Mr Hitchens' bow, his uncanny ability to predict the future. For example who could forget this amazing piece of prophecy.
"There will be no war - there will be a fairly brief and ruthless military intervention. The President will give an order. [The attack] will be rapid, accurate and dazzling....It will be greeted by the majority of the Iraqi people as an emancipation."
First, as a brief preface: Praise be to Allah, for he has permitted the return of brother al-Sonic to the fold of Hitchhunters. To Hitchhunters, he is much akin to the 12th imam, and his return from the Occultation as prophesied means we will soon witness a final apocalyptic showdown with the Great Sachens, and then world peace and justice shall be ushered in for the entire blogosphere. And I think we can safely say that this finally puts to rest these outrageous Zionist lies that al-Sonic had somehow been killed by the Crusaders with their Predator Troll attacks. He is alive and healthy, and constantly in contact with us. So, Death to the Dictator Hitchens! hitchens is not great! hitchens is not great!
BRING THE POPINJAY TO JUSTICE
It's been hard not to notice that lately our Popinjay has been fluttering around quite a bit, flaring his feathers, showing off his plumage, and attracting a fair amount of attention with this latest little publicity stunt of his, namely calling for the arrest of His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI. Look at me! Christopher Hitchens! The world-renowned atheist! Buy my book available at fine bookstores everywhere! etc.. etc..
You know, just because Hitchens is jealous that Ratzinger is now far more likely to be the Anti-Christ than he is, that's no reason for him to lash out on the poor Pontiff like this. I mean, let's face it, Ratzinger's record on the abuse scandal as Pope is already far better than John Paul's was, or any other Pope on this question in the entire history of the Papacy for that matter, and as wicked and criminal as Ratzinger is, even he didn't support something as monstrous and evil as the gratuitous slaughter of say, I dunno, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis for no good reason. But why bring up ancient history like that, right? Yes, it's truly hard to say who the more morally despicable human being overall is here: Ratzy, or the Big H?
Due to all this, Hitchens Watch has now officially launched a global campaign calling for the arrest of the archcriminal Chris Hitchens for his "crimes against humanity." We've got a whole skyscraper full of lawyers on this doggedly working round the clock at Hitchens Watch worldwide headquarters in Dubai, constructing an airtight legal case as we speak. Admittedly it's going to be an uphill battle, so our lawyers better come up with something good or they're not getting their visas back.
At the same time though, we may end up having to spare Hitchens' worthless life on this one. For even though Hitchens is a flawed vessel to make a moral indictment of the One True Church, to put it politely (considering for instance that of all the candidates in the historic 2008 Presidential Election, our Hitch chose the most Papist one of all, one whom was even tied to the abuse scandal), nevertheless, if CH is going to bloviate on something, at least it's something substantive and worth going on about. Unlike his usual Slate column that is, which everyone knows these days is half the time him feigning outrage over a Muslim whistling at a white woman, or something on that level.
There have been pundits opining on why this might be so, his fresh faced look, his new policies, the desire for a change to the stifling two party system or his aforementioned shadow puppet skills.
We here at HW have perhaps uncovered the real secret of his success, Nick's early political education sitting at the feet of the Greatest, Public Intellectual of our Generation Christopher Hitchens!
What could this mean? will a Clegg led United Kingdom have our hero as the power behind the throne, will Britain invade Iran and Pakistan whilst banning churches and arresting the pope?
We are through the looking glass here people.
|
America's greatest living intellectual makes the Weimar analogy
That's according to Chris Hedges at Truthdig. But more important for us, old Noam is dumping on Christopher and his ilk again, which shows that the gentleman has not lost any of his marbles.
Chomsky reserves his fiercest venom for the liberal elite in the press, the universities and the political system who serve as a smoke screen for the cruelty of unchecked capitalism and imperial war. He exposes their moral and intellectual posturing as a fraud. And this is why Chomsky is hated, and perhaps feared, more among liberal elites than among the right wing he also excoriates. When Christopher Hitchens decided to become a windup doll for the Bush administration after the attacks of 9/11, one of the first things he did was write a vicious article attacking Chomsky. Hitchens, unlike most of those he served, knew which intellectual in America mattered.
“I don’t bother writing about Fox News,” Chomsky said. “It is too easy. What I talk about are the liberal intellectuals, the ones who portray themselves and perceive themselves as challenging power, as courageous, as standing up for truth and justice. They are basically the guardians of the faith. They set the limits. They tell us how far we can go. They say, ‘Look how courageous I am.’ But do not go one millimeter beyond that. At least for the educated sectors, they are the most dangerous in supporting power.”
There are a couple books coming out in June worthy of our attention: one by Hitchens - his "memoir" about how many famous people he knows, his mom's suicide, and his dad's flawless military service through Empire, etc. And another by Alexander Zaitchik, a contributor to Hitchens Watch. Hitch's book we already know will be a total fu*king bore to those of us who don't appreciate incessant name-dropping, how he loves to possess a strain of Jewish ancestry, and other grandiose claims to fame.
So I recommend Zaitchik's bookCommon Nonsense: Glenn Beck and the Triumph of Ignorance instead - which is a thorough history and takedown of not only Glenn Beck but of the American Right in general. Zaitchik writes at a much higher level than most WashPo/NYT journalists without the sort of pomposity and hyperbole that characterizes, say, a typical Hitchens book. To see what I mean, check out Zaitchik's series on Beck at Salon.com.
I'm afraid none of us here at HW know exactly how much Slate pay for Christopher's weekly bits, but given the content of this weeks Cut and paste, sub lonely planet travel guide could they not just have got an intern to do it?
We all know how vindictive Hitchens is and how he also loves to take potshots at the old (i.e. Vidal) and recently deceased (i.e. Edward Said). I think I've spotted a somewhat obscure instance of both of these neurotic impulses on display.
I could be reading too much into this, but it appears to me that Hitchens now wants revenge against...J.D. Salinger. Earlier this year, it was reported that the reclusive Salinger "hated" "phonies" like Hitchens and BFF Martin Amis. (A great novelist that Salinger, and apparently an excellent judge of character too.)
In his latest essay/book review for the Atlantic on Charles Dickens, Hitchens, out of nowhere, slights Catcher in the Rye:
This pearl [in reference to a Dickens line that Hitchens likes - no need to reproduce here] was contained in a private letter not intended for publication (Dickens was almost always “on”) and is somewhat more searching than the dull question—“Where do the ducks in Central Park go in winter?”—that was asked by the boy who spoke so scornfully of “all that David Copperfield kind of crap.”
The dull question? Well, maybe the line alone, when taken out of context, doesn't mean much. But you have to read the whole exchange to appreciate it. Let's refresh the memory. Holden is in NYC and has just picked up a taxi driven by a man named Horwitz. Here's the exchange:
"Hey, Horwitz," I said. "You ever pass by the lagoon in Central Park? Down by Central Park South?"
"The what?"
"The lagoon. That little lake, like, there. Where the ducks are. You know."
"Yeah, what about it?"
"Well, you know the ducks that swim around in it? In the springtime and all? Do you happen to know where they go in the wintertime, by any chance?"
"Where who goes?"
"The ducks. Do you know, by any chance? I mean does somebody come around in a truck or something and take them away, or do they fly away by themselves--go south or something?"
Old Horwitz turned all the way around and looked at me. He was a very impatient-type guy. He wasn't a bad guy, though. "How the hell should I know?" he said. "How the hell should I know a stupid thing like that?"
"Well, don't get sore about it," I said. He was sore about it or something.
"Who's sore? Nobody's sore." I stopped having a conversation with him, if he was going to get so damn touchy about it.
But he started it up again himself. He turned all the way around again, and said, "The fish don't go no place. They stay right where they are, the fish. Right in the goddam lake."
"The fish--that's different. The fish is different. I'm talking about the ducks," I said.
"What's different about it? Nothin's different about it," Horwitz said. Everything he said, he sounded sore about something. "It's tougher for the fish, the winter and all, than it is for the ducks, for Chrissake. Use your head, for Chrissake."
I didn't say anything for about a minute. Then I said, "All right. What do they do, the fish and all, when that whole little lake's a solid block of ice, people skating on it and all?"
Old Horwitz turned around again. "What the hellaya mean what do they do?" he yelled at me. "They stay right where they are, for Chrissake."
"They can't just ignore the ice. They can't just ignore it."
"Who's ignoring it? Nobody's ignoring it!" Horwitz said. He got so damn excited and all, I was afraid he was going to drive the cab right into a lamppost or something. "They live right in the goddam ice. It's their nature, for Chrissake. They get frozen right in one position for the whole winter."
"Yeah? What do they eat, then? I mean if they're frozen solid, they can't swim around looking for food and all."
"Their bodies, for Chrissake--what'sa matter with ya? Their bodies take in nutrition and all, right through the goddam seaweed and crap that's in the ice. They got their pores open the whole time. That's their nature, for Chrissake. See what I mean?" He turned way the hell around again to look at me.
"Oh," I said. I let it drop. I was afraid he was going to crack the damn taxi up or something. Besides, he was such a touchy guy, it wasn't any pleasure discussing anything with him.
Obviously nothing "dull" about that hilarious exchange. I guess Hitch's ego is so big now, he thinks he can take down a legend like Salinger. Good luck. And there's no point in arguing literary tastes here, but I would take the Catcher in the Rye over the collected works of Charles Dickens any day of the week. I could never finish a Dickens book - too heavy-handed and bogus for my tastes, or, like P.G. Wodehouse said of Dickens' novels: "they're written for children and half-witted adults."
Regular readers of this site will remember a three part feature of a televised debate called 'The Big Questions'. On Sunday the show featured a debate asking the question "Should the Pope Resign?".
An apologist from 'Catholic voices' responded to the contents of a letter concerning the recent scandal of child abuse infesting the Catholic church:
"The good of the universal church needs to be considered in any defrocking"
The mood seeming to be that the Catholic church and it's accused members (in every sense of the word) matter more than the innocence and protection of children. Quel surprise.
I thought it worth posting here as an addition to previousposts that have explored this issue and, as FGFM commented recently, the Hitch and Richard Dawkins are planning to arrest the Pope when he arrives in Britain. The Pope's defence against this arrest seems to rely on whether he can be judged a head of state and therefore be eligable for diplomatic immunity. Again, quel surprise.
Peter Hitchens has been asked for his opinion on this move by his brother and Dawkins and, to my knowledge, is yet to reply on his blog. But he has declared his wish to "enter Parliamentary politics, with the intention of influencing and playing a part in the government of [his] country". However, it seems he's not interested in the actual work of being an MP and being "diverted into the displacement activity of constituents' problems" oh cripes no! He just wants to be able to have greater authority in telling us how to live our lives.
"A national party espousing my views would in my opinion sweep the country, if it were not the Tories"
Would it now? Would that include a view that any religion is better than no religion? Would that include deference and the persecution of single mothers? I wonder how the victims of Catholic preists would feel about that? And the young girls abused in the Magdalene launderies?
Peter Hitchens is not Social Services. And neither is the Catholic Church, but that doesn't excuse behaviour or an attitude that is arguably un-Christian and certainly unkind.
"'You bastards, you even took away their means to express themselves, so they couldn't come back at you."
IMHO any outrage isn't or shouldn't be confined to a finite number of sexual abuse cases (as if that isn't bad enough). It's about an attitude, a culture of deference that should be abolished for good. This is no time to turn the clock back.
And asking the Pope to resign isn't nearly enough.
Update: Peter Hitchens replies and comments on the scandal surrounding the Pope and the Catholic church in four seperate blog posts, starting with this comment that opens:
"The boastfully named 'Clear_Thinking' (may I plead with him or her to abandon this insufferably self-satisfied pseudonym, which prejudices me , and I am sure many others, against everything which appears above it?) now pesters me about my brother's plans to arrest the Pope of Rome. The answer is that I shall make no direct comment upon this, for reasons I have clearly explained in public places over the last two years"
Our valiant Neocon-errant showed remarkable courage at New York University's Skirball Center recently, drawing out his lance and defiantly declaring his controversial and unpopular stance of opposition to genocide, regardless of whomever may disagree. What a contrarian. A real polemicist.
Thankfully, our plucky Popinjay was far too brave and wise to let something trivial, like say his own longstanding support for genocide, distract him from such a wondrous performance, one not, of course, grandstanding nor sanctimonious in the very least.
The rest of the video is on the Youtube channel of our archnemesis "Daily Hitchens."
At the top of my head I can think of a few notable examples of Hitchens implicitly or explicitly endorsing genocide. Feel free, dear readers, to add in the comments any cases I've missed.
2. I would refer you fellow Hitchhunters to Comrade Richard Seymour's fine essay "The Genocidal Imagination Of Christopher Hitchens" where he explores our lad's penchant for genocide in some detail. For example, while this is not strictly support of genocide, Seymour recounts within his piece our Hitch on one occasion elucidating his nuanced views on matters war and peace: If you're actually certain that you're hitting only a concentration of enemy troops . . . then it's pretty good because those steel pellets will go straight through somebody and out the other side and through somebody else. And if they're bearing a Koran over their heart, it'll go straight through that, too. So they won't be able to say, "Ah, I was bearing a Koran over my heart and guess what, the missile stopped halfway through." No way, 'cause it'll go straight through that as well. They'll be dead, in other words.
4. Although he has lately somewhat distanced himself from Trotsky, Hitchens has nevertheless been a Trotskyist for most of his career and is still fairly sympathetic to the figure, regardless of the fact that Trotsky was a genocidal maniac and mass murderer who as head of the Red Army was, for instance, directly involved in the genocide of the Don and Kuban Cossacks in the Bolshevik's grisly "Decossackization" program.
I'm not that interested in the Catholic Church. I don't really like the Catholic Church. Where I grew up the kids that went to Catholic School were the meanest in the neighborhood and they sometimes beat me up. I think the whole thing is kind of spooky and that's why it's in so many horror movies. I know some great people who give thanks to their upbringing in the Church. I also think given the nature of the whole set up some of this sex abuse is inevitable. I can't imagine why parents would want to send their kids to Catholic School but I know some very good people who do it.
What the Press and DA's Office did to the McMartin Family still sickens me and I have a thin skin for these abuse stories. I remember the totally invented "ritual abuse" scandals of the eighties. I just haven't followed this latest round much.
What I DO know is the unmistakable odor of a Hitchens Pie, those crusty stink bombs that litter the field of argument when the beast is allowed to run wild but alas only kill the grass of enlightenment.
General Observations: The host assures us She wants to be make sure we are being fair to the position of the Church in this matter. Then Hitchens is fed a series of softballs on the order of "how do you feel about being so right, and is it possible in the future you will turn out to be even more correct?" This gives Hitchens the chance to grandstand about what he told his mutual friend and colleague (and odious schlockmeister) Chris Matthews. The ever-dopy Mike Barnicle explains that there are accessories to crimes but doesn't explain to Hitchens that a DA in Wisconsin doesn't really have jurisdiction over Rome.
Take note that no quote is offered for the Pope saying "the only scandal is a press campaign against the church" "the abuse was not the problem, only the revelation" ....this is almost certainly nonsense. I've watched Hitchens play this game many many times, inventing words or ripping small phrases out of context to inflict damage where he see fit. The talking head, dumbed down mainstream media, with it's commercial thirst for outrage and indignation, is a willing mark. Our revered contrarian, the delight of eggheads on the left and right, argues in the same fashion as the slobs of A.M. drive time.
In the end the Host brings up, in deference to her opening comments, that This Pope has acknowledged the problems of abuse but Hitch will have none of it. This is not explored with the specificity required to have made it interesting or enlightening. So it's all tied up in a nice, self promoting bow for Hitchens. Yet we can't quite ignore the arrogance of Hitch's talk of restricting Travel (so the Pope comes to New York and gets arrested, that's likely!); in light of the war criminals Hitchens has thrown in with in recent years.
Perhaps on the tenth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq Hitchens could moderate a panel on the event. Bush, Cheney, Powell, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz. Let's have it in Paris.....
Our incontinent Hitch, a High Priest in the Church of Godlessness, has simply been unable to control himself lately and just can't stop molesting and abusing Catholics. Why, he's even been divinely inspired to lay down a Holy Trinity of back-to-back-to-back Slate articles, a real trifecta, pertaining to the Vatican's abuse scandal. And, of course, he's also been proselytizing on the Cable News channels to preach about the One True Church's innumerable sins:
Now, sure, I mostly agree with him about the indictable complicity of the Holy See in this whole disgusting and criminal affair, but, as usual, Hitchens talks a better game than he plays. We can instantly dismiss Hitchens' sanctimonious posturing on all this when we recall that he was an unabashed endorser of Rudy Giuliani for President, the same Giuliani who has, and still is, aiding and abetting this mass rape and desecration of innocent children by supporting the Catholic pedophile Monsignor Alan Placa, his oldest and closest friend, whom had been doggedly working to cover-up the abuse scandal himself in his diocese before he was suspended over allegations of molesting children. Placa was just "cleared" of any wrongdoing a few months ago by the Catholic Church, to the outrage of victims' groups, adding yet another grisly footnote to this global abuse scandal.
For Hitchens to lecture us all about his opposition and prescience on this matter is obviously beneath contempt, as he well knew about Giuliani's crackpot religious views during his Mayoralty and his connections to the abuse scandal through Placa. But nevertheless, since "America's Mayor" had a penchant for bellicosity and mass-murder, I suppose that trumped some minor peccadillo like unbridled support for Papist pederasts.
“The enemies of intolerance cannot be tolerant." • "If it is an offense to justice to hold people who may have been victims of mistaken identity or of vendettas by other factions, then it is also an offense to justice to release psychopathic killers who believe that they have divine permission to throw acid in the faces of girls who want to attend school." • "Don't be such a lesbian!
”
