Last summer Michael J. Totten — intrepid independent foreign correspondent — interviewed Robert D. Kaplan. Last week, over “glasses of Johnny Walker Black Label” he got a chance to talk to another hero writer of mine: Christopher Hitchens.
Most people annotate their introduction of Hitchens with such a comment as: “I don’t agree with everything he says, but…” I, on the otherhand will be less furtive in my introductions by saying that I greatly admire Mr Hitchens, and believe him to be universally respected for his rhetorical ability, both in speech and in letters. A good man to have on your side, but you must never assume that he will be. But I digress.
Totten’s interview is entertaining: religion, morality, censorship, terrorism, democracy, and travel stories abound. I mean who wouldn’t want to read an interview with a quotes such as:
- Islamophobia is vague and linguistically clumsy. A phobia is an irrational fear. My fear of Islamic terrorism is not irrational. It’s quite well-founded.
- I don’t want to be sitting on a plane in Detroit and wondering if some craphound is going to blow me up.
- … occasionally, carving up grandfathers and granddaughters with an axe on New Year’s Eve can be okay if it’s done to protect the reputation of a seventh century Arabian man who heard voices.
- If you can give the name Mohammad to a shitting, screaming, nuisance of a kid—which somebody does 5,000 times a day—then I think you should be able to give it to the class’s favorite teddy bear.
Poor Totten can barely get a word in edgewise! Though it must be said that it is a rarity that Christopher Hitchens does not let the world know what he really thinks. Enjoy!
I look forward to part two. Part II is now live!
Christopher Hitchens’s latest book God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything is available in fine online bookstores everywhere. I believe he is currently working on an autobiography.
Get the RSS
Comments to this entry
Anon
January 10, 2010
7:09 am
However, and I say this because I have a Christopher Hitchen number of two, since I once worked on a project with someone who worked on a project with him, from what I heard he is somewhat of a troubled person.
Though, I guess having the rhetorical abilities that he has, there has to be a tradeoff, no?
Felix
January 10, 2010
7:42 am
Carl
January 10, 2010
11:28 am
Was it just me or was Hitchens completed sauced during his appearance on Maher's show? About four months ago? If I remember correctly he came out with a glass of whiskey.
Peter
January 10, 2010
1:06 pm
I imagined myself interviewing the late Bill Buckley about Bach and encountering the same sort of erudition vs. smarm tradeoff.
Anon
January 11, 2010
12:54 am
lol, I don't recall, but I am not surprised. I think it was a YouTube video where he was speaking at some university and during the intermission he makes a beeline for the open bar, which he might have asked beforehand to have there. The second part of his talk begins with him holding a glass of wine.
I still remember one of his lines from that one, about Christianity being a slave religion, both for the slaveowner and the slave. Brilliant. But, geez, I want to slap him sometimes.
spandrell
January 11, 2010
1:05 am
then lasting about one nanosecond before he cried for help.
The guy speaks well but he is pretty goofy.
Roy Berman
January 11, 2010
2:37 am
Bob Harrison
January 12, 2010
1:31 am
Younghusband
January 12, 2010
11:23 am
If those are the real reasons then why wrap them up in religious rhetoric? Moreover, if they are saying they are doing it for religious purposes, why do commentators not take them at face value? Why do people often dismiss such religious justification as "rhetoric"? (I am thinking of both your comment Bob, and also the commentary surrounding the Hassan attack at Ft. Hood). It seems pretty presumptuous to me that the commentariat knows better than than the perpetrator what his reasons are.
I can offer a theory: in our culture religious rhetoric makes criticism a taboo, it gives crazies an undue air of untouchability. It is this that atheists and secularists rant about: the taboo around criticizing religion. Personally, I would much rather argue about economic and ethnic issues.
Bob Harrison
January 13, 2010
4:01 am
I wasn't trying to suggest that economic and ethnic issues are the real reasons for the Jihadists. That war is certainly a poor example as it is almost completely based on religion. It seems like every commentator (at least on TV news) has to make the perfunctory claim that terrorism comes from poverty and despair while ignoring the middle and upper class status of the 9-11 hijackers and the most recent Abdulmutallab. I was thinking more about past wars.
I once heard Hitchens make a comment along the lines of "The Irish have finally decided to stop killing each other over worshiping the wrong God." I thought it was an absurd oversimplification of a complicated conflict that had as much to do with ethnic hatreds as it did with theological conflicts. I also object to the notion that the world would be more peaceful without religion. I'd point to Europe in the 20th century as evidence to the contrary.
I agree however, with your theory that criticism of religion is a taboo in our culture and found the commentary around Hassan to be unbelievably naive.
I happen to be an atheist but I don't expect to ever be in a majority. I have a feeling religion (and the irrationality that comes with it) is here to stay.
Younghusband
January 14, 2010
12:37 am