... to bash religious freedom.


Classy.

Amen. His obsession with religion is bordering on the pathological--he can't write anything anymore without somehow managing to turn it into faith-bashing. It's tired and boring to read. Respectfully: shut up, Mr. Hitchens, until you work out your personal problems.

Word!

I generally agree with Hitch on religion. That said, he does seem to be taking a lot of cheap shots, particularly at Huckabee. Several of his recent articles have included at least one throwaway comment about Huckabee.

Not that I'd vote for him, but it is getting tired.

No, Hitchens is calling people out on their playing of the "religion card." Why do idiotic ideas get a free pass merely because they're religious? Religious freedom is preceded by, indeed predicated on, the freedom of ideas, and that includes ideas that critique other ideas like religion. Nothing's off limits. One has as much right to criticize Hitchens for criticizing religion as he does to criticize it, but if your criticism is with his criticism per se, and not with its content, then you're the hypocrite not him. Were any serious candidate found to believe in a UFO cult or to swear by the healing powers of stones and crystals, failing to claim for those beliefs the mantel of religion they would lose the de facto respect and silence of the general public and get the grilling they deserved.

H.Williams wrote the following post at 01/08/2008 12:35 PM: No, Hitchens is calling people out on their playing of the "religion card."


Obama has played neither "the religion card" nor "the race card." He avoids talking about either. He's no Bible-thumper or race-baiting demagogue.

Hitchens is raising both issues - race and religion - as grounds for why Obama "can't be taken seriously."

And one card is just as bigoted as the other.

Listen again to Obama's Iowa victory speech. The opening does play the race card, if stealthily and with plausible deniability.

That said, the balance of his rhetoric is much cleaner, and a little "at last" language sure is less scary than the wafts of cracker nostalgia coming from a few Southern pols.

But, if he is a congregant of that church... their web site makes the Augusta Country Club's race policies look tame.

"And one card is just as bigoted as the other."

I was responding to the tired, contentless objections to Hitchens' objections to religion. I would like to know what's bigoted about critiquing religion? See again my post above. Ideas that get called religions (to compound ideas with ideas) should go unquestioned but the questioning of them get labeled with the conversation (and free-exchange-of-ideas) halting label "bigot"? But anyway "and one card is just as bigoted as the other" is my argument as it is Hitchens'. How is he playing either of those cards? Is Obama a member of the church in question or not? Does he share its beliefs? Why? Or does he not? Then why be a member? And as for Obama's "race": I listen to news radio pretty much all day and that's pretty clearly an issue, and whether Obama addresses it explicitly or not you can be sure that in these times of identity politics no serious political campaign is going to look the gift horse of whatever currency it can get from such an issue in the mouth. Hitchens thinks there are better reasons to be elected president. Don't you?

Where is this strawman arguing Obama should be president because he's black? Listen carefully to the "race" stories on your talk radio and you'll notice that most of them aren't so much talking about Obama's race as talking about how people are talking about it - just like Hitchens is. He's adding to the hype and spinning the hype while complaining about it.

And how's he spinning it? To bash Obama because of his religion. Now, I'd be the first to back Hitchens up on this if Obama wore it on his sleeve and pandered with it. But no, Hitchen's really had to dig on this one - dig for books on websites affiliated with other websites - none of which have anything to do with Obama's platform. Hitch has to claim guilt by association. He strains to base assumptions about Obama solely on what other members of his congregation are like.

Nothing's bigoted about critiquing religion - it's bigoted to dismiss a person as not "serious" based solely on their religion.

He's bashing Obama with his religion for his religion and he's bashing the popularity of Obama to the extent that it's merely race based. That's no straw-man argument. It's a feel-good narrative lots of people are getting behind. Is he over-stating it? Maybe. That would be a good argument with which to counter his. What I see instead in this forum and others like it are imputations of motive. Hitchens doesn't honestly think this is a problem: it's an excuse to bring religion back into the debate through the back door. And yet when has Hitchens hesitated to bring in the front? Perhaps he's concerned equally by the roles that race and religion play in politics and that in the case of Obama they converge. Are these not reasonable concerns? How differently should they be raised? I'm not sure, given the nature of such debates, that anyone could possibly voice such concerns without the label of bigot, and I think that's revealing of a far more pernicious brand of bigotry entirely. There are a lot of different Hitchens being argued against here, all with easily dismissable motives, and most of them are straw men.

It's one thing when the politician himself is ostentatiously religious - then bash away.

But when you have to go rooting and digging around on web site links to find his religion... well, how is that any different from digging for dirt on his friends and family? If he's not making his religion any of our business than why should we? If you and Hitchens really want religion out of the public sphere then why drag it back in at every opportunity? You seem just as zealous as the Bible thumpers. (And, just like crusaders and jihadis, the zealously anti-religious have there own history violence and genocide to face up to - all done in the name of cleansing the world of the evils of religion.) Not allowing a public figure to be religious in the quiet, separate way Obama is can only be called intolerance.

flashlight,

You are absolutely right. People need to stop confusing the mainstream media with what Obama says or does. All of the people who keep saying Obama is playing the race card or religion card can not give examples.

Obama occasionally talks about his religion. And he only talks about his race sometimes. It is the MEDIA which is obsessed with talking about Obama's race...

Maybe if people stop talking about it or asking obama about his ancestory we can stop hearing about Obama's race...

There is nothing bigoted about critisizing a persons religion, but when a person does not talk about his/her religion, why is it your business??? The same is true with a persons faimily. If a candidate does not talk about their family and spouse much, why are you asking personal questions...??

Huckabee and Romeny talk about religion all the time. They make it everyones business.

I could be wrong, but Obama does not make it anyones business.