Review: The Passion Of Christopher Hitchens

It is probably impossible to "objectively" review Hitchens's latest and most bristling book-length polemic, entitled God Is Not Great. Either you flat out accept the assumption that Hitchens rejects -that there is a God (in the case of his most vehement American critics, add "and His Son is Jesus")- in which case you are simply arguing past him, or you agree and can throw up your hands in the air with self-satisfaction, secure in your "secular humanism." There are massive problems with his argument for the return of the Enlightenment, and with his adulation of scientific progress (an equally angry book could very well be written about the monstrous injustices of science, from eugenics to the Atom bomb). What is difficult to challenge honestly are his attacks against superstition, fundamentalism, and the inherent hypocrisy of all sycophantic belief.

Hitchens is trapped, however, by his newfound neo-con posturing. In some ways he appears to be consistent: he deplores the whole of Christianity as much as he does the whole of Islam, and has no room for nuance. But when challenged, as he was by Bill Maher on television, to comment on the disturbing Protestantism animating George W. Bush, he cannot throw his friends on the bus. No, Hitch says, Bush is not actually religious, and his conversion from alcoholism was not due to Jesus but to threats from his missus (this said on no evidence whatsoever). He wouldn't even comment on whether Karl Rove was an atheist or not (Rove claims he is). He also ludicrously insisted on referring to this sleazy charlatan as "Dr. Rove" (imagine Hitch's snide huffing and puffing if one gave honorifics to some of his favourite targets like Mother Teresa and Kissinger). The assumption that people, especially those one happens to agree with, are "secretly" humanists and only outwardly religious does a huge disservice to Hitchens's otherwise worthy attack on religion. Bush's faith is real enough, and drove him headlong into the Iraq War. Religion is that much more dangerous than Hitchens would have it because it is more deeply rooted than even Hitchens thinks.

Finally, Hitchens's love for America and its tradition of separation of church and state (he constantly returns to his heroes Paine and Jefferson) grossly misunderstands the reality of religion in America. Yes, the U.S. has never had an official church, and the Jeffersonian position on religion is an example the rest of the world should emulate. But for a country that is upwards of 80% Christian (Hitchens claims, again on little evidence, that people lie to pollsters and spend their Sundays drinking martinis, thus putting the problem out of sight, out of mind), and where presidential candidates have to appear at a ridiculous forum with a bearded gnome asking them questions that sound an awful lot like the religious tests the Constitution forbids, the problem is very real indeed. Perhaps Europe, where much to Hitchens's dismay citizens have to pay taxes for an established church but where belief levels have fallen dramatically, is a better example to follow. In America, unofficial religion rages ever stronger, while in Europe organised Christianity is dying (Islam is another problem altogether). Perhaps this "neutering" of religion's deleterious influence on society is a better way forward than simply saying it's not the government's business and letting it spread privately. Better an irrelevant Pope than a relevant Rick Warren.