He's working the old Bernard Shaw rhetorical line, and it accomplishes nothing. It isn't even excitingly "dangerous," despite the subtitle to this article. Think religion is for idiots? Oh, how devilishly naughty of you! Want to cartoon up the personalities and actions of religeous believers, and founders, to make them appear a bunch of silly-billies, or dangerous war-mongers? What a skillful debate captain! And I'm sure any high-schoolers stumbling upon his book or this interview might be giddy with excitement. Most adults, on either side of the argument, will experience boredom.

Nothing he's doing here helps the discussion. It won't have any effect on people of faith—certainly it won't provoke them to re-think their position. And those without faith already have their reasons for not believing (some with more, some with less, reasoning behind their choice than Hitchens). Plus, atheists tend to be rather blase on the subject of religion and God. Not believing, they aren't very interested in the topic, even unto trying to prove the negative—which you can't, anyway. With the exception of fundamentalists, people of faith also tend to be unintersted in these kinds of ramblings; atheism is a continual and accepted presence in our culture (the argument for or against God's death even providing a famous cover story for Time), so they aren't likely to get incensed over Hitchens's diatribe.

One of the funniest things about this article is that Hitchens, newly minted citizeship or not, is British through and through, and religion has been almost unpracticed in Britain for quite a long time now. By the standards of his own culture, this book is old hat. Guess he thought it would appear spicier on this side of the Atlantic.

Hitchens is in danger of becoming as unreadable as Camille Paglia. When the ego is all-absorbent, the mind becomes an echo chamber. And the rest of us stop listening.

According to the Institute for Social Research at the University of Michigan about 27% of the British population attends services. This in comparison to 44% in the U.S. 16% believe that religion is important in their lives, vs. 53% of Americans. This is not the only study available. The long decline in churchgoing among the British (since, roughly, the 1950's) has been widely chronicled.

But, of course, by hammering on that part of my post, you missed the whole thing. Even if Britain suddenly became the most religious country in the world, it wouldn't alter the uselessness and pointlessness of Hitchens's bombast, which is useless to atheists and not written in a way to intrigue or challege people who are religious.

The rise of Islam is sort of pointless in connection to what I was saying: namely that Hitchens is voicing a respected, staid British position. That Islam is rising in Britain (which would not exactly mesh with the figure I gave about the average view of religion in my earlier post: note that was a response to a question about religion, not specifically Christianity) does not matter because Hitchens's social outlook isn't formed by what's going on there now, but by what was going on when he was in college, and what he and the other British cultural gatekeepers still take as the norm.

To answer your question: I read the chapters printed in Slate.

the issue of religion in Britain is tangential. I'm not sure why this has grabbed your attention, especially as the rise of Islam would have to be a recent phenomenom, and I'm referencing a cultural position that has been in place for over half a century.

My criticism is that he isn't seeking to understand why people have a need to believe, and he doesn't present his position in a manner likely to make believers question their faith. Nor is his verbiage likely to appeal to many atheists who, deciding there is no God, have moved on to other subjects.

It's the most isloated case of preaching to the converted: giving a rant that only he has an interest in hearing.

That's really what I'm writing about, and the fact that his "it's-so-obvious" school of atheism mirrors that of the British culture which formed him is only secondary.

If you get mugged by a black man, then all blacks are suspicious. If a woman used you, females just ain't as good as us guys. Germany spawned Nazism, so let's never trust those guys or give any of them credit for ethical actions again. And if some religious people (demonstrably a minority of them) use their beliefs for war and hate, all religion is a blight.

This is called prejudice.

Most Jews and Christians and Buddhists and Taoists and Moslems, just to hit the big religions, are people whose faith brings out their humanity, their compassion, and their morality. This goes for most of their leaders, too.

Mother Theresa was a fraud? I kind of doubt it, and India is too politically charged to just trust one's side accusation without being able to check first hand (as my friends who are Indian have pointed out to me). But even if her opponents were granted the point, what about all the nuns who were the only people to take care of AIDS victims early on because no one knew how it was spread, or the ongoing work done for the poor just in this country alone, and the continual aid for the sick? And that's just an example from one group in one religion.

Look around your community and look at the behavior before you decide what most religious people are really like.