As much as British intellectual Christopher Hitchen's enjoys rallying against religion, he doesn't appear to be free of the very religious thinking he sets out to criticize. OK, so maybe "religion" is too strong a word, or not quite right--dogma and rigid ideology probably work better.
But whatever you want to call it, Hitchen's worldview, analysis and decision-making seem completely enslaved to his anti-religious tunnel vision. Everything he addresses seems to be compounded through this Manichean perspective as you can see from the video below where he and CNBC blowhard Larry Kudlow talk about President Obama's response to the current turmoil in Iran:
Ok Hitch, I understand: you don't like religion. Congrats. I'm not traditionally religious myself. But I do understand that there's such a thing as nuance--that there's grey, not just black and white. What good would it accomplish if the United States railed against the Iranian regime, put its full (open) support with the protesters, and (as Hitchens suggests) refused to recognize Iran as an Islamic Republic--perhaps even openly denigrating that title's connotations? Well, you'll probably help delegitimize the protesters' movement by making it appear (to those in Iran who are "on the fence" in the conflict) that the movement is a western ploy filled with western puppets. It would further, if we were to bash the "Islamic Republic" title, alienate those in Iran who may be unhappy with the current leadership yet still want to retain an Islamic identity for the nation and government, but perhaps support larger societal and governmental liberalization.
If you want a progressive revolution in Iranian society there needs to be a broad base of support against the current regime and its ideology. How can you foment this through insulting and alienating groups of people in Iranian society who have the potential to be strong, effective members of this revolutionary base? It's a simple answer: you can't.
And Chris, I gotcha: you don't like Islam. I myself don't understand organized religion. But you shouldn't let it shape your every decision to the point of dogmatism. Dogma, by its very nature, cuts off certain facts, often time critical facts. This is Hitchen's very problem with religion and dogmatic thinking in religion. So why does he apply this type of reasoning to Iran (and many other cases of international relations)? Open hypocrisy or just sheer dogmatic ignorance? Take your pick.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
ehhhh, i didnt think it was as bad as all that, but I'm not a big fan of religion either. The key difference I think in Hitchens and dogma is
"At the core of the dogma concept is absolutism, infallibility, irrefutability, unquestioned acceptance (among adherents) and anti-skepticism.[3]"
I do believe that hitchens is open to debate, and applies skepticism to his own ideals and life situations. Maybe that is why he felt the need to alienate rather than blindly support?
Religion is kind of unique in that its designed to be unquestioned, and answer all of life's questions for you, so as long as people are doing religion "right" there is a legitimate worry from an anti-religious point of view, regardless of the situation. To drop that worry in favor of a specific situation would be sort of ignorant wouldnt it?
It's not about dropping a concern over religious thinking. It's about the degree to which that worry affects Hitchens' decision-making in international affairs. And it's a shame to see someone so intelligent cloud his judgment in this way.
Again, in Iran, both the regime and its challengers (the majority that is) identify themselves as Muslims. Even though the protesters want a change of leadership or a change in the form of government, many would still want to identify the state as an "Islamic Republic."
Hitchens advice--to the U.S. government nonetheless--seems to be to condemn all who want the state to have an Islamic identity. Now I understand that Hitchens would prefer a secular regime in Iran; so would many people. But you need to look at what's realistic, what's attainable, and what actions are going to make things even worse.
What's attainable is a more progressive Islamic Republic (best case scenario). Although there exists humanists and socialists (whom Hitchens readily and rightly identifies with) in Iran, their numbers and influence are far and few between.
The only thing that Hitchens' advice would accomplish would to a) further feed into and support Khamenei's and his flunkies' anti-western propaganda b) delegitimize the revolution's cause c) possibly result in an even more tyrannical, dogmatic and isolationist regime in Iran.
The sad thing is that is not in Hitchens' longterm interests. He seems to be acting with his heart more than his head in this case.
Post a Comment