Letters to the Editor
-
Solid Analysis
In an interview in New York Magazine, Hitchens described the differences in his opinion and Richard Dawkins' as such:
"I don’t think Richard Dawkins would mind me saying that he looks at religious people with this sort of incredulity, as if, 'How possibly can you be so stupid?' And though we all have moods like that, I think perhaps I don’t quite."
However, it can be argued, Hitch's condescension towards the religious is even more insidious than that of the evolutionary biologist (that guy seems like he doesn't care to know anything about religious beliefs). In the chapter titled "Does Religion Make People Behave?", he dismisses the idea that religion can be a driving force for benevolence. He argues that Dr. Martin Luther King, whom he admires as compassionate and open-minded, was "in no real sense as opposed to nominal sense... a Christian."
He continues and says that Gandhi, through his "rejection of modernity" and glorification of the primitive Indian village, actually retarded and distorted the liberation of India. Finally he calls one of the greatest modern populists "an obscurantist religious figure." Hitchens says that if the hapless but "secular" Nehru and the British had been left to take care of the situation, it would have turned out better for all parties and could have resulted in a unified Indian-British stance against fascism.
Never mind the fact that, in this section, Hitchens comes off as an apologist for British Imperialism - it is clear that his admiration for downtrodden people (and the people who try to relate to them) goes only as far as their religious beliefs. By not willing to concede, that for some people, religion serves as an effective moral and ethical compass, Hitchens betrays his pity for those who believe in a higher power. I'd like to paraphrase Graham Greene and say that pity is the worst form of condescension.