Christopher Hitchens Unbound
Earlier this evening I was pointed to the
home page of Charlie Rose. For the better part of a year, his web team has been assembling videos of nearly 4,000 hours of interviews the host has done over the years. If you are interested in hearing guests talk about ideas rather than blatantly promoting whatever book or film they are currently pushing, then I recommend you snoop around the site. You will be like a hyperactive child let loose in a candy store with dad’s credit card. While the viewing choices are almost over whelming, I zeroed in on the most recent interview with Christopher Hitchens, a journalist I have shifted from finding an irritating devil’s advocate to someone who sees the world in many ways similar to myself. There is what browing old and bitter will do to you.
The interview is
here, if you care to watch it. It lasts a smidgeon under thirty minutes. In it, Hitchens talks about his views on Iraq and about his new boo,
God is Not Great, both topics I found fascinating.
I got the impression Charlie Rose intended for the bulk of the interview to be about the book, but Iraq absorbed too much time. Hitchens was and still is a strong supported of the war although he has now, like many others, drawn the conclusion Iraq is a failed state. Buthe also concedes Iraq was probably always a failed state. The country was cobbled together by Winston Churchill with no regard to whether the diverse ethnicities and religious believers could hold it all together. They could not and probably cannot without a strong, barbarous grip like Saddam Hussein had.
At the same time, Hitchens believes the US has to stand up to such regimes because we cannot coexist with totalitarian regimes. It is an anathema to a healthy democratic state. We part ways here somewhat. I agree the Us could not coexist with a Nazi Germany or a Communist Soviet Union because of their aggressive, totalitarian ways. I am not so sure we could not coexist with Iraq under Saddam. Yes, it was necessary to liberate Kuwait from his grip to maintain the free flow of oil, but I have doubts Iraq could have been anything more than a terrorist nuisance from there on out. Hindsight is 20/20 and like Hitchens, I suspect terrorist ties were enough of a US interest to remove him. I just fear the Talibanization of Iraq is goig to come back to haunt us.
Despite all that, the heart of the interview was about Hitchens’ antireligious book. Honestly, there are no new atheistic arguments under the sun, if I may ironically take a phrase from the book of Eclesiastes. Hitchens basically could have crossed out the title
Age of Reason from Thomas Paine’s famous book and wrote in
God is Not Great. Hitchens, like Pain, is an angry man who believes religion poisons everything. I think, like many nonbelievers, misses the notion that people are likely the bigger problem than the religion and that goes across the board. A little blue haired old lady walking to church with a Bible tucked under her arm is fine. Fred Phelps protesting the funerals of homosexuals is not, yet both at least marginally part of the same religion. I have had enough experience in apologetics to know the distinction is lost on most skeptics.
He did say one thing on the issue I thought was insightful and revealed to me that while he is a skeptic himself, his beef is with fundamentalist. I am no skeptic, but I have in recent years developed a large distaste for fundamentalists. (*Waves at Regent University*) He finds it interesting that people who genuinely believe there is a God out there who loves them enough to redeem them from evil and will welcome them into eternal paradise ought to logically be very happy with their own belief. Yet they do not seem happy unls everyone else believes it, too. It betrays a certain insecurity about faith that there is a contrary opinion floating about that serves the contrarians well. I have thought this way for awhile. It was really hammered home after three years at Regent University where I witnessed first hand the paranoia of Christians regarding differences o opinion in doctrine and morality. Faith the size of a mustard see indeed. I think it lead to my full embrace of Calvinism. You either have it all or you do not, but either way, there is no sense in bugging anyone else with it.
Finally, Hitchens notes a point which is actually what I wanted to address here before I started meandering. He is not a novelist. He told Rose he could not write fiction if his life depended on it. He explained the difference between novelists and essayists like himself. Novelists and poets seem to understand music while essayists do not. I have been dwelling on that observation all night wondering how true it is. More accurately, I have been wondering how well an understanding of music I have an what that means for me as a writer of fiction. Food for thought I imagine I will continue feasting on for some time to come..