Mr. Hitchens makes an excellent point - I've seen similar demonstrations in Indonesia. Unfortunately, he obscures his thesis so badly with his usual rage at everyone he believes is stupider than he is that he may as well not have made it at all. I wish Mr. Hitchens would realize that a large percentage of the people he thinks are so stupid they are beyond saving probably aren't, and further, that many of those corrupt or benighted souls would agree with Hitchens' thesis if it were elucidated with more light and less heat. He might even be able to convince some people not inclined to agree with him on first blush. But, rather than try that, Hitchens in effect throws up his hands - the overall effect of these polemics is more likely to induce anger at Muslims in general (as if we need more of that!) than to lead to an intelligent discussion between people of good faith trying to find their way to the truth. That's the trouble with polemics - the inherent underlying assumption must be that the polemicist has a monopoly on wisdom and the other pole (whose position has been characterized and caricatured by the polemicist to assure that it is presented as negatively as possible) has a monopoly on stupidity. As difficult and messy as the truth is, there's one thing we can be almost certain of - it's difficult and messy, and therefore impossible to render in the black and white palate of the polemicist. Still, I'm sure Hitchens is remunerated (and sometimes venerated) for his "mal mots", so even if they haven't led us closer to the truth, and in fact may have even led us away from it, at least one person is richer for the experience.

Jesus, land this plane already blowhard.

Try writing this again by half.

I'm just curious. Who is forcing you to read the post?

No, no, he's got a point. Try this:

"Columnists need to create controversey in order to maintain readership. As a result, what they write, while entertaining, doesn't necessarily advance arguments or issues in a helpful way. Hitchens is a prime example of this issue."

There. Now, isn't that easier on the eyes? And the head?

"That's the trouble with polemics - the inherent underlying assumption must be that the polemicist has a monopoly on wisdom and the other pole (whose position has been characterized and caricatured by the polemicist to assure that it is presented as negatively as possible) has a monopoly on stupidity."

The irony of this statement is astonishing.

In terms of renumeration, me thinks ol' Rage Boy is making a few rupees for his hashish.

Colonel,

Hitchens' piece is certainly a polemic against the kind of showy, over-the-top, manipulative rage-aholism which is too often used by the Islamists. What's wrong with that? We should write polemics against such childish tantrums.

Your concern that Hitchens' call to resist such bullying by the Rage Boys for fear of feeding the rage, is the perfect example of the problem: the West's willingness to put up with nonsense in the name our (by now fetishsized) notion of "tolerance," an allergy to ruffling other cultures' feathers even when doing so is required to uphold certain important principles we cherish such as freedom of expression. Sorry, some ideas are worth fighting over and we must not allow our principles be shouted down by barbarians.

If your concern is that Hitchens is painting all Muslims as Rage Boys, then you have a lot more reading of Hitchens to do. He has been a loud, consistent, long-term stalwart of Muslim moderates.

Amen notime!

Well, my mommy liked the post .... But seriously, due to the bloated nature of the post (sometimes I edit, sometimes I regret not editing), my point probably got buried. I agree with Hitchen's thesis, and I agree with what you say above. What I didn't like about the column is that the imperative to have "fighting words" instead of reasoned arguments, left some nuances behind. More importantly, I think the tone might turn off some people who could be led to agree with him (not Rage Boys, but moderate Muslims and thoughtful people in the West) if he treated them as reasonable people who could be persuaded by reasonable arguments rather than as people too stupid to be saved. I agree that our ideas and principles are worth fighting for. I think that shouting at the other side is more likely to make them shout back than it is to make them say "that red-faced guy shouting at me and calling me stupid and corrupt has a point."

But polemics are more fun to write and to read.

I''d like to address the "fetishization" of tolerance. Most people who say this don't think the National Review, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Times, the Weekly Standard, Anne Coulter, Charles Krauthammer, etc., etc., fetishize tolerance. Who's doing the fetishizing then? The "liberal media" of course (and of course, "liberal media" usually refers to the entire objective media, which includes many, many, moderate voices as well). Well, if it's a fetish, would it be difficult to find a quote in the Washington Post, the NYT, anywhere in the vast liberal media combine to support the belief? "Fetishization of tolerance" may be more of a subjective impression than an accurate description of objective reality, formed no doubt in part through incessant complaints in the conservative media that we are - wait for it - fetishizing tolerance. One more thing - if someone in the Muslim world tried to get people enraged by quoting Anne Coulter, and saying that her rants are proof that Americans hate Muslims, I think you'd agree that this would not be fair. She doesn't represent America - we want to be judged by our best actions and good intentions, not by our mistakes and the actions of the worst among us (forgive the shadow quote of "The Second Coming"). If we apply the same standards in our approach to the Muslim world, we'll marginalize the Rage-Boys by finding common ground with decent people of good will rather than by highlighting the acts of extremists.

I did not have the news media in mind when I mentioned "fetishization of tolerance." I spent 14 years in a major academic institution and had more of that world in mind when I wrote it.

My point was that a culture can become so self-doubting, so worried that we may have our own cultural point of view that would offend another, that we can easily lose our own cultural point of view altogether. We lose our own self-confidence and encourage others who run up against confidence to be offended. And in as much as modern Western civilization is built on classically liberal ideas and principles far more so than ethnicity, music, food, costume and other physical aspects of "culture," that is particularly dangerous. We need to maintain the confidence to assert our cultural values when they are at stake.

As a warning, see how in England there are Muslims demanding that they run their own sharia-law courts, outside of the English legal system. And the response? It's actually being debated by the British, including such concerns as "who are we to judge?" that sharia law - which requires such things as honor killings - as being any "worse" than British common law, which invented the very concept of habeus corpus.

That is the fethishization of tolerance.

Colonel...

Islam is a dangerous religion for both Muslims and non-Muslims.

For Muslims, Islam offers complete brainwashing (bowing to Mecca 5x a day is but one example), subjugation of adherents by their clerics (if you quit Islam you die), codification of the denial of basic human rights (their treatment of women), barbarism (amputation for thieves, stoning for adultery, whipping for minor crimes, and decapitation for Islam's enemies).

For non-Muslims, Islam is dangerous in the sense that their stated goal is to convert all non-Muslims to Islam. There is no such thing as a moderate Muslim. The more tolerance people preach the closer we get to the lion dressed in lamb's clothes.