anthony @ 19:40
Hitchens Unhinged
Richard Poe | Taki’s Top Drawer | October 09, 2007
Writer Christopher Hitchens has hit the jackpot. His new book, God is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, has proved a runaway bestseller. Why, then, is Mr. Hitchens so angry? Eyewitnesses report that Hitchens erupted into a drunken rage at a recent promotional event for his book. After denouncing circumcision as a “filthy Jewish practice,” Hitchens reportedly descended from the stage, visibly inebriated, approached a Roman Catholic priest in the audience, and began shouting at him, only inches from his face. Hitchens called the priest (a hero of Sept. 11) a “child molester.”
Dawkins on the power of the Jews
Daniel Finkelstein | London Times | October 05, 2007
I have just come across the most extraordinary statement by Richard Dawkins. It is right there on the Guardian website without a sentence even questioning it. Here it is:
When you think about how fantastically successful the Jewish lobby has been, though, in fact, they are less numerous I am told – religious Jews anyway – than atheists and [yet they] more or less monopolise American foreign policy as far as many people can see. So if atheists could achieve a small fraction of that influence, the world would be a better place.
So Dawkins, a liberal hero, believes, er, that Jews control world power. And, judging from the Guardian, it is now a part of mainstream debate to say so. Perhaps you think I am over-reacting, but I am a little bit frightened.
Chris Dillow manages some elegant reflections on social proof.
All I can manage is Oh My God.
Daniel Finkelstein is Comment Editor of The Times and writes a weekly column. Comment Central is his rolling guide to the best opinion on the web. Click here for more information on the blog. Robbie Millen, the Deputy Comment Editor, will also be posting.
Anthony’s ha’pennyworth:
I do not for one moment believe that either Hitchens or Dawkins are systematic anti-Semites, although I think they are both wrong on the fundamental questions of life (where we come from, who we are and where we are going to…).
And although (or, rather, because) I’m a Bible believing Christian, I find myself in agreement with much of what they say about the damage done in the name of “religion”.
Like Hitchens, I deplore the practice of circumcision (both on neonatal males and on prepubescent girls), though I think his own abhorrence of it was somewhat unfortunately expressed, and, like the “many people” whom Dawkins apparently listens to, I think AIPAC has too much influence (see my previous post, Milton Viorst on “The Israel Lobby”)… .
The great Russian émigré and anglophile philosopher, Isaiah Berlin, wrote a short book, The Fox and the Hedgehog, based on the Russian proverb, “The fox knows many small things and the hedgehog knows one big thing.” In this respect, I think that Hitchens and Dawkins are foxes and that I am a hedgehog, or so I like to think.
BTW, can anyone spot the logical non sequitur in the Dawkins quote?
Hitchens has been prone to drunken rages for some time now. He is to be ignored.
Onto Dawkins: where does his conclusion not follow from his premise (logical non sequitur)? If I understand correctly he is saying that if atheists had but a fraction of the influence over US foreign policy of that which is held by religious Jews (I believe he means the Israeli lobby here), then things could only be better. That is open to opinion of course, but I do not see the illogic in his approach. Do fill me in.
Why should they be better?
I see your point: it is true that the world would not necessarily be a better place if atheists had a fraction of the influence of that of the Israeli lobby over US foreign policy. What Dawkins should have said is the world would be a different place—one in which one group based upon the interpretation of one religion does not hold undue sway over a specific policy. But that does not make as good a sound bite.
Dawkins does not mention the influence of the Christian right in the US, which I would argue is just as strong, if not stronger, than “religious Jews” when it comes to US foreign policy towards the middle east. He also lumps all “religiouus Jews” together (and for that matter all atheists together as well). Such stereoptyping is always a mistake.
Dawkins’ position is also based upon the assumption that the so-called Israeli lobby is motivated strictly by “religion.” That is open to challenge. I would argue that there are many religious people, both Jewish and Christian, who profoundly disagree with US foreign policy towards the middle east (ie: Jimmy Carter). They are just not as loud as those who weild undue power and influence in the name of religion. And like you, I do stress “in the name of.”
Returning to your original question, punditman, which I’ve had time to reflect on during the course of today, I would say that in the context of the quotation, the statement that the world would be a better place is a logical non sequitur as it does not follow on from the previous statement about the enormous influence of the Jewish lobby on American foreign policy.
If Dawkins is saying that atheists are nicer people than Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs and Buddhists, then it is a logical conclusion, but I don’t think he is saying that.
But perhaps I’m being pedantic.
Taking Dawkins’ beliefs in general as premises, then it is of course a logical conclusion.
To my question, “Why would it be better?” I might add, “better for whom?” Perhaps better for the children who have religion of one sort of another thust down their throats, the people who are afraid of losing their jobs because they are atheists, and politicians who have to make phoney confessions of faith, which is a point he makes ikn the article.
Although he does not say so explicitly, I would certainly agree with those who says that the Israel lobby has not only too much power over US foreign policy, but a baleful influence on it.
And I agree with what you say about the influence on US foreign policy of the Christian right in America. I sent an angry e-mail to the website of Pawcreek Church last summer denouncing them for extolling America’s great weaponry and for characterising Alex Jones as far right for his views on 9/11 and saying that for Christians like myself they were “an embarassment”.
Tony Robinson, better known for his comedy, produced a superb video on the influence of the religious right’s particvular interpretation of Biblical prophecy and it’s influence on US middle east policy which I’ll post if I can find it.
Let’s bring on Armageddon as it will mean wer’ll get raptured first. What nonsense! The Bible clearly teaches that Christians are going to face persecution before Christ returns.
BTW, Tom Harper on my Cuba post comments on the continuing boycott of Cuban goods by the US: “A few thousand wealthy rightwing Cuban expatriates in Florida have a scrotal grip on America’s foreign policy, and that’s wrong.”
It would appear they’re not the only ones.