Reacting to a death with respect and hatred

I wasn’t going to write a eulogy to Christopher Hitchens, and I still won’t. After all there are some excellent eulogies on the internet by far better writers than me. But I am intrigued at the world-wide reaction to his death. So, in instead of a respectful eulogy here’s my thoughts on those reactions.

Hitchens’ death was expected. However, when it came I certainly experienced a shock. A strong feeling of disappointment and loss. And I think that must have been a common reaction judging from the widespread and immediate reactions on social networking sites.

There seem to be four common reactions to that sad news:

1: Respect for the person despite beliefs

I personally disagreed with some of Hitchens’ ideas and approaches but admired his literary skills, his principled nature, courage and forthrightness. Sure, he was often confident about some things he shouldn’t have been (I am thinking here of some of his comments on scientific issues) and I don’t particularly admire debaters for that skill which is often far from concerned with truth. Having said that, I think Hitchens’ destruction of his five opponents (four Christian apologists (including self-pronounced expert debater WL Craig) and the chairman, who intervened on  their side at the Christian Book Expo in Texas two years ago, is a classic. Rather like a tag wrestling match. If you haven’t watched it see Hitchens in the lions’ den. I also remember his mischievous, but I think honest, remark in a discussion that he did not actually wish to see the end of religion because he would miss the debates.

Most people disagreed with Hitchens’ support for the US invasion of Iraq. This was a common comment in these eulogies.

I thought I was being mature in having an objectively favourable impression of Christopher Hitchens, despite my disagreements with some of his positions. But I find that most people who have written eulogies and opinion pieces in the last few days have also exhibited that maturity. That is heartening.

Of course, that mature attitude was also one of Hitchens’ endearing features. He also had personal friendships with people despite differences in belief. Despite his atheism he had religious friends, for example. He was the sort of person who respected people – not beliefs. And that is how it should be.

2: A man of principle

We urgently need more principled people and that is one strong reason for the loss many of us felt. It’s not accidental that one of the first to bring Hitchens’ death to the world’s notice, and to write so positively about his life was Salman Rushdie. Clearly he appreciated Hitchens’ principled support when he had to go into hiding because of the fatwa, the death threat, placed on him by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the Supreme Leader of Iran. And this was a time when so many others instead displayed cowardice and lack of principle by blaming Rushdie for this position!

Hitchens’ principled support for Ayaan Hirsi Ali when she had to go into hiding for similar reasons is another example. And she also faced cowardly criticism for her situation.

These principles not only enabled Hitchens to stand up and be counted on important issues relating to life and freedom like this. It also enabled him to fight against hypocrisy in his writings and speeches. Recently I read his The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice – it’s a short book and I recommend it to any who have not yet read it. In it Hitchen’s expertly exposes the hypocrisy of Mother Teresa‘s “charity” work, her alignment with, and support for, some of the most evil people and her lack of any real compassion for the people she “helped.” Hitchens also spoke about similar sorts of hypocrisy exhibited by religion everywhere. In doing so he was taking on a sacred cow, breaking a cultural taboo, which gives religion a free pass – freedom from criticism. Again a valuable example to us all.

3: Changing people’s lives

This was a common comment in recent days. That Hitchens has changed many people’s lives. Many commenters are referring to his literary skills – the beauty and strength of his writing. But for most this is about his courage and ability to stand on principles. And to express the beliefs that many had but felt unable to freely express because of their real or perceived unpopularity.

Particularly in the USA Hitchens book tours and debates provided the experience for non-believers, for the first time in their lives, of seeing their beliefs expressed forcefully, eloquently and authoritatively by a leading intellectual – in public! This encouraged many non-believers to “come out.” To publicly acknowledge their own beliefs. This was a liberating, life-changing experience for many of these people.

I think this has been an important feature of the so-called “new atheist” (gnus) phenomenon. One can sit back and criticise these people for calling a spade a spade, but the public activity of people like Hitchens. Dawkins, Harris, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Stenger and Dennett has played a huge role in consciousness raising – and in permitting people to be open about their beliefs.

On the other had, this reaction has shocked others. Who would have thought that the book tours by Hitchens and Dawkins through the Southern “bible belt” of the USA would have drawn such huge crowns and such approval? Some people just cannot forgive Hitchens and the other gnus for this harsh lesson.

4: Confirmation that “religion poisons everything.”

That subtitle “Religion poisons everything” really did upset some. While Hitchens was always keen to argue the point he of course acknowledged that a book title or slogan should not be taken as the literal truth.

Certainly I think the subtitle is incorrect – it should read “ideology poisons everything” – lets not give a free pass to other ideologies by limiting our criticisms to religion.

But what intrigued me is that some of the reactions to Hitchens death did provide confirmation for this slogan. The Twitter response to the news was huge – so great that some of the tags used trended worldwide. One tag trending was #godisnotgreat – the subtitle in question. And the reaction by some Christians to this tag confirmed the slogan.

Presumably those offended by the tag did not realise either that it was a book title or possible even knew who Hitchens was, let alone that he had died. Their reaction was simply to threaten death because the subtitle upset them!

BussFeed shows some of the Christian responses in the post 25 Ridiculous Reactions To #GodIsNotGreat. Responses like:

On the whole, of course, written responses to the news of Christopher’s death have not been so poisonous. And after all, most of those writing did not have an ideological barrow to push. Many wrote about his literary skills, such as the comment from World of the Written Word:

Vanity Fair, the magazine for which Mr. Hitchens worked, confirmed his death.
Mr. Hitchens, an English-born writer who had lived in Washington since 1982, was a tireless master of the persuasive essay, which he wrote with an indefatigable energy and venomous glee. He often wrote about the masters of English literature, but he was better known for his lifelong engagement with politics, with subtly nuanced views that did not fit comfortably with the conventional right or left.

And then there were a few (very, very few) like the New Zealand blogger* who (unwisely) allowed his obvious hatred full reign using words like:

“prat, pretending, smug, arrogant, ignorant, belligerent.”

Presumably he was unable to see the irony in writing an arrogant, ignorant and belligerent post to accuse someone of being belligerent!
He is of course of the Christian apologist puersuasion and obviously really upset because of Christopher’s critique of religion.  But how can you be so far out of step with reality to say of Hitchens:

“He lived as a fool, played to the lowest common denominator, encouraged a generation of sloppy, angry argument makers and committed his career and a good chunk of his life to hostility towards his maker. His life was one of genuine tragedy.”

I guess there are none so blind . .

* I must admit an interest here having just been banned (for the third time) from commenting on this blog. This blogger apparently just can’t tolerate real debate.

Similar articles

19 responses to “Reacting to a death with respect and hatred

  1. I am a little disgusted at Glenn’s lack of grace in attacking the recently departed.

    Personally the thing *I* most respected about Christopher Hitchens was his undergoing torture (water boarding) to show the horror of this practice. Whatever his beliefs this shows he has a lot od balls and strong convictions that came from his heart.

    Rest eternal grant unto him. And let light perpetual shine upon him. May he rest in peace and rise in glory.


  2. I think I’m one of those people who, despite not always being in perfect agreement with him (but then again, who are we always in perfect agreement with?) nevertheless still had an incredible amount of respect and admiration for him. Reading some of the more vituperative posts was disheartening.

    Although, regarding those tweets you posted above, seeing the way they’ve butchered the English language, I suspect they wouldn’t have really understood Hitchens, even if they tried.


  3. “obviously really upset ” *chuckle*, Ken, you really do adore the thought that you’re able to read minds.

    If a person carries on like a bit of a prat – and someone else says so – that doesn’t mean anyone involved is upset. Let alone “really” upset. Let alone “obviously” so. Ah well, if it makes you feel good.


  4. I haven’t read a lot of Hitchens’ works, but I have heard a lot about him and also his praises sung by Dawkins, who I have read in some detail. His courage and fortitude in fighting this disease that ultimately took his life was an inspiration to all. I might not agree whole-heartedly with hiw political views, but I found he had a vision beyond most political commentators and his prescience is only now becoming obvious, for eg. with regard to his views on the Arab spring revolt.


  5. And that’s another pattern I recognize Glenn. Avoid the substantive issue by trying to find a detail to quibble about as a diversion.

    I think the evidence actually speaks for itself in this case.


  6. Personally the thing *I* most respected about Christopher Hitchens was his undergoing torture (water boarding) to show the horror of this practice. Whatever his beliefs this shows he has a lot od balls and strong convictions that came from his heart.

    That real-life demonstration shook a lot of people out of their complacancy about the issue of torture and what “water-boarding” really was. It certainly forced me to do some re-evalutation. It was an example of what Hitchens was all about. He walked the walk.

    Watch Christopher Hitchens Get Waterboarded (VANITY FAIR)


  7. Glenn: Now you are on TWO blogs bad mouthing the guy. With all due respect… if you can not say anything nice – please shut up. You don’t harp on about everything you dislike about someone when they have just died. Seriously. Get off your high horse and have a little dignity!


  8. (Also Ken don’t feel too bad about the ban! Glenn is up to his censoring/editing people’s comments trick again!)


  9. Oh, I don’t feel bad about such bans, Max. Although it would be nice to have a reasoned debate unfettered by such avoidance.

    No, every time this sort of thing happens I count it as a victory. After all if he refuses to discuss what Hume really wrote and the emotional nature of morality he is, in a sense, conceding to me.

    To be honest, in interacting with people like Glenn who get very emotional and end up making rash claims or decisions I am aware that my normal provocative style can provoke such reactions. In a sense I may even be willing him to “go nuclear.” (I am aware of the testosterone infused games played out by geeks in Internet discussions). But I don’t think it is honest or at all useful to “walk on eggshells” in such cases. After all, I don’t have to live with the guy.

    Also, blog discussion postings are rather over-rated. By there nature people get emotionally involved but this often means few people actually follow the specific discussion. I can always express myself, and advance my ideas and speculations, with a post on my own blog – author posts obviously get more readers than discussion entries.

    While I do appreciate the learning I get from discussion interactions this is obviously not possible with some people. But there are plenty of others who are not so dogmatic but can still disagree respectfully.

    And Glenn is always welcome to comment here if he really feels the need. After all he does disagree with a lot of my ideas.


  10. You realise of course that Glenn actually made arguments in his blog, not from vindictiveness but from conviction. It is poor form to go around ascribing motives, I don’t think Glenn’s piece was disrespectful, just honest. Polite platitudes are not what Hitch would have wanted. (see: Hitchens choice words on Ronald Reagan and Jerry Falwell, on the day of their death).

    Plenty of other obits of Hitchens were far more scathing of his political inconsistency and support of the War on Terror. I think he enjoyed the showmanship of being a contrarian. I enjoyed the show, even if it had huge plot holes, the special effects were entertaining.

    Also a few random Twitter comments does not support any kind of argument for “religion poisoning everything”. Idiotic fanaticism is not limited to religion.


  11. Idiotic fanaticism is not limited to religion.

    That’s very true. It’s a shame that atheists don’t think so. Many, many times I’ve caught Ken making the claim that idiot fanaticism is limited to religion.
    Personally, I’m shocked.
    Shocked, I tell you!


  12. Yes, ropata, Glenn’s conviction obviously drive his vindictiveness and hatred. They certainly contribute to his anger problem.

    But you may have noticed he is capable of defending himself – he commented above. I don’t prevent him from contributing to the discussion here.

    And if you had been able to overcome your own anger problem you would have noticed that I disagree with the slogan “religion poisons everything”. And I noted that Hitchens did bring attention to the difference between a book subtitle or slogan and an actual conviction.


  13. “Anger problem?” — I’m here for the entertainment, I found the above two comments quite laughable.

    “Religion poisons everything” — You didn’t contradict the slogan you expanded it! And supplied some idiotic twitter comments for good measure. Sorry if I misinterpreted your “disagreement”


  14. Yes, Ropata, you did misinterpret. But your apology doesn’t sound sincere. Do Christian get special exemption on such matters?


  15. It’s about as sincere as your “disagreement” with Hitchens’ slogan.


  16. So you do get a dispensation then?


  17. Sorry if I misinterpreted your “disagreement”
    It’s about as sincere as your “disagreement” with Hitchens’ slogan.

    The Passive Aggression of the Christ


  18. I am sorry for the demise of your guru Hitchens but for all his gifts he was a deeply flawed human being and it’s not rude to point that out. After all he was very good at pointing the finger at others.

    You condemn Glenn for speaking ill of the dead yet comments such as the above get a free pass? I haven’t commented here for a while, I had forgotten the rules around here.


  19. Ropata, we are all deeply flawed. Just that some like Christopher also had important positive features which many people are capable of appreciating.

    Glenn’s mistake was not speaking ill of the dead – and I didn’t criticize him for that (where do you get your mistaken ideas from). It was letting his hatred interfere with his ability to make anything like a proper assessment of a fellow human being.

    But I didn’t expect any better from him.


Leave a Reply: please be polite to other commenters & no ad hominems.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s