He Never Pushed a Noun Against a Verb Without Trying to Blow Up Something

Returning from lunch I found a spot fairly close to the stage for the afternoon's event wherein Christopher Hitchens would receive the coveted Emperor Has No Clothes Award. Hitchens was the most popular figure to speak this weekend and also the most divisive. Not only does he draw the ire of the faithful with his excoriation of religion, but he also angers many with his pro-war stance. And so it was yesterday.



While I've heard and seen many of Hitchens' interviews and debates, I'd never actually been present at one. He is a remarkable speaker with great charisma that inspires extreme feelings. Sitting there listening, I thought that he is perhaps the Robert Ingersoll of this day and age. Hitchens is eloquent, funny, and passionate; passionate not only about giving his opinions and defending them, but also of reaching out to his audience and engaging them. At one point when speaking about how he favored pugilism in dealing with Iran, he offered to argue with all comers and to not leave until he had taken everyone on no matter how long it took. I've read a lot of his words, heard recordings of him speak, and watched many videos of him, but having him there and in-person added so much more. That's how we human beings are. Pictures and recordings are very meaningful but face-to-face contact adds other dimensions that representations cannot ever hope to capture.

The change of tone that his speech engendered was great. Ellery Schempp, Matthew LaClair, and Stephanie Salter all talked about the need to keep church and state separate and gave the case for hope that the religious right can be defeated. Then Hitch comes on and, about a minute in, he called Mother Theresa an "old bag". A definite shift of pace in the proceedings. But there was also some good humor to be had such as when he was talking about childbirth and remarked on how wonderful the preconditions for it were. Most of his talk mirrored what he's been saying for the past several months on his tour in support of his book God Is Not Great. I don't want to reiterate much of what he said here so, if you're unfamiliar with how he's been airing his views on religion lately, head over to Buildupthatwall.com and watch some videos.

When Hitchens remarked that, if Jerry Falwell had been given an enema, they could have buried him in a matchbox, he got a great reception. But the decidedly left-leaning crowd was less gracious when he offered his most important contribution to the conversation – fighting theocracy in the Middle East with our military.

I consider Hitchens to be a lefty despite his pro-war views, although I suspect he might say because of them. His ultimate ends are very much in line with other lefties – it is the proximate means that cause for dispute. For instance, he talked about how, in Iran I think it was, women who were virgins could not be killed for having committed crimes which were punishable by death according to law. So what happens is that the women are put into circumstances (I cannot for the life of me recall them exactly) where they are likely to be raped. Once the hymen is punctured, they can then be suitably dispatched with according to the law which gets its muscle from religion. The anger was palpable in his voice when he related the sad tale. But it wasn't an attempt at shock and awe; it wasn't just an atrocity happening somewhere far away that could merely be co-opted to illustrate a point. It provoked a visceral reaction within him – fury. Another highly impassioned moment came at the end of his talk when he said something akin to, "You people can sit around and watch as crazed theocracies pound at Western civilization, but you will NOT do it in my name!"

I see that P.Z. Myers has written recap of the convention which includes a philippic on Hitchens. I guess we'll have to wait for his speech to be available on Wisconsin Eye or online for the truth to emerge but this bit of Myers' recollection of what Hitchens said is at odds with mine:

We cannot afford to allow the Iranian theocracy to arm itself with nuclear weapons (something I entirely sympathize with), and that the only solution is to go in there with bombs and marines and blow it all up. The way to win the war is to kill so many Moslems that they begin to question whether they can bear the mounting casualties.

I think that Myers has either errantly mixed two separate answers that Hitchens gave to two separate questions or switched subjects without being very clear that he was doing so. Hitchens did address how to deal with the Iranian theocracy but the part about questioning whether they can bear the mounting casualties was in reference to Iraq. Someone had asked how to gauge victory in Iraq and Hitchens' reply was when the terrorists began to question themselves and have doubts about their methods and their presence. That's my recollection, at any rate.

And I do not remember Hitchens saying that the solution to Iran was to anything akin to "blow it all up". As I recall in answer to a questioner, he said that to deal with Iran, it was necessary to blow up their nuclear weapons and related facilities. After this it would be optimal to remove the theocracy. Admittedly, he did not offer how this was to be done but he did not say that we ought to just destroy the country.

Myers' summary of Hitchens' foreign policy proposals:

Basically, what Hitchens was proposing is genocide. Basically, what Hitchens was proposing is genocide. Or, at least, wholesale execution of the population of the Moslem world until they are sufficiently cowed and frightened and depleted that they are unable to resist us in any way, ever again.

I must wonder if he and I were listening to a different speaker because I thought he was clear about what he thought we should set our military against – theocratic fascists with nuclear weapons who threaten the West. This is in stark contrast to the notion of obliterating all Muslims. Hitchens has conceded many times with yesterday included that religion is part of our nature and that it is not going to disappear off the face of the earth. Instead its effects can be mediated by secularism. To say that Hitchens called for something akin to the genocide of Muslims is ridiculous. Indeed, he argued against withdrawal from Iraq so that we would not abandon a group of people who are mostly Muslims and mostly secular.

While we'll find out when Hitchens' speech is broadcast by Wisconsin Eye, I find myself at the moment deeply disturbed that Myers' either A) grossly misunderstood what was said yesterday or B) is so at odds with Hitchens that he saw fit to accuse him of advocating genocide. I don't exactly see eye to eye with Hitchens on foreign policy do think Myers' comments go beyond uncharitable.

I was unaware that an FFRF member had handed out open letters to the freethought community protesting Hitchens' inclusion at the convention and opposing any speakers of his sort, as Myers relates. Not having read the letter, I can't really say a whole lot. However, my gut reaction is: wow, how freethinking of you. Instead of welcoming discussion, debate, and argument, let's ensure that we have only speakers who preach to the choir and merely make everyone feel good.

One area in which I do agree with Prof. Myers is in the structure of the meeting. He says:

Seriously. What is our goal at these kinds of meetings? It is to organize. To interact with fellow freethinkers. To get ideas that we can carry home to help advance our goals. To meet new people and to network. To be entertained. Strings of long talks do this very poorly.

Another problem: attendance at this kind of meeting is largely on the gray side of middle age, with very little in the way of young people. Why? Because it's boring! We should be engaging and recruiting more college-aged people, and this format just won't do it.

I've already remarked on the age issue and I presume that this was Myers' first time at an FFRF convention. There were more young faces this year than at the last one I attended. And hearing Chris Hallquist and the fellow from Minnesota talk about strategies for promoting freethought organizations at their respective universities was heartening. It inspired me to think about resurrecting the Madison Atheists Meetup. I don't know if I will or not. It dissolved in late 2005 when the website started charging and meetups had 3 folks tops in attendance. (One of those folks – Kelly – was at the Brocach on Saturday afternoon, ironically enough.) Many people had expressed interest in the group but it was difficult to get everyone together when it seemed like most folks had a 2-hour window on different days of the week. When someone suggested that we meet on Wednesdays, a host of voices rose in opposition. One person could only do Tuesdays and another only Thursdays. If the time was set at 7-9, then people would bow out because they weren't available until the meetup was over. It was exasperating. Madison is friendly towards atheists because it is fairly areligious – people let others do their own thing so it's not like heathens feel the need to band together to oppose a common oppressor. For my part, the majority of my friends are atheists and they're all secularists so it's not like I am desperate to find like-minded individuals. Still, it would be fun to have the meetup because I'm a pretty gregarious. But if it degenerates into paying money to herd cats, I'll take a pass.

Getting back to what Myers said, I agree that it would be nice if there were more, shorter talks where people could do more than listen to a figure behind a podium. The problem is two-fold: 1) The Foundation is stuck having to one degree or another cater to those folks who are on the gray side of middle age. Perhaps I am a horrible person for suggesting this but I don't expect many of these folks to have much of an interest in engaging with popular culture, which is something Myers suggested as a subject for a discussion. I am involved with another organization whose membership is mostly gray-haired and I can tell you that it has no interest in catering to younger people.

2) I don't think the FFRF is interested in being a facilitator of social networking. At least not to any great degree. I cannot find it now but I'd swear I read something (on their old webpage?) where someone asked if the Foundation would sponsor a monthly social gathering of area members or something like that. The answer was no and, if memory serves, the reason was that the Foundation was not a networking organization. In other words, we'll file lawsuits and you folks figure out how to socialize. Perhaps knowing this is why I didn't let the pedantic nature of the convention bother me.

At any rate, I had a good time lunching with some fellow heathens, chatting with some random folks, and hearing the speakers. While the Hitchens dust-up may garner the most attention, I found listening to and afterwards talking with Matthew LaClair to be the real highlight of the weekend. It was great to see a high school kid stand up for what's right instead of being content to just follow along with everyone else. Having met him, I think that he's got a great future ahead of himself.