I'm a Christian. I'll read Christopher Hitchens' articles from time to time, maybe out of some latent masochism, but mostly because I'm at work and I need something to pass the time. The tone of today's piece confuses me a little. Did someone attack Hitchens in an article or question his right to vote for a candidate based on the criteria of his choosing? If so, can someone link me to this? Otherwise, I agree with the writer that he is well within his rights to personally disqualify any candidate who professes his faith (as are the previous posters who said they wouldn't vote for anyone who did not accept evolution).

What I don't understand, based on this article and others where Hitchens makes it clear he finds people like me distasteful, is how he would like me to respond. Does he want me to acknowledge (as others have in the past) that I'm guilty of intellectual suicide? Sure, I'll cop to that. Does he want me to admit that I'm a fool for believing in God and a Messiah? That's fine--it wouldn't be the first time I've been accused of being foolish. Or does he want me to cast aside my faith and say that he's right?

It seems to me that this is the key to the whole discussion. I firmly believe that a heaven exists and that, to get there, I have to accept Jesus as my savior. The tenets of my faith imply that I'd like others to believe this for themselves, but I don't demand it of them, and I certainly don't need them to in order to ensure my salvation. I think that that's the point of faith--believing something without scientific or even social reinforcement. I try to be as open and honest as I can be about my faith with others, and as much as they'll allow, but I certainly don't think I'm capable of saving anyone--only Jesus can do that.

Guys like Hitchens, though, seem to need to hear that they are right, or seem to need the constant assurance that they are smarter or more enlightened than believers of any faith. That's what I don't get--he's free to think he's smarter than I am (and, I'm sure, he probably is in a great many ways), but why does he have to hear it from me? So I believe I'm going to heaven, and he believes I'm an idiot for thinking so. Why not just leave it at that?

Or is this just an exercise in name-calling?

I don't think that Hitch is asking you for anything. He's just exercising his right to express his own opinion. Do you have a problem with that?

Hey there: no, I don't have a problem with his expressing his opinion--every profession of my faith is my expressing my opinion, so it wouldn't be fair of me to deny him the same. It's just that I didn't understand what this discussion was driving toward. If the only purpose is to point out that I'm the village idiot, then I guess that's alright; I'll have to live with that.

But by all means, I'll agree with him on this: the whole point of our political system is to let the voter pick whomever he'd like based on whatever criteria he would like. If anyone is denying him that, then they are off base.

Hitchens IS asking for something. It's a horrid fallacy that people "expressing their opinion" are not doing anything else. We don't express our opinion simply to be heard. We could fart loudly and be heard equally well. We are trying to affect other people when we voice our opinions. We could be trying to so all sorts of things, like convert others to our way of thinking and to piss people off, among many other reasons. But it's important for our Christian friend to remember that every article is not written with everyone as the intended audience. The writer usually has a particular set of folks in mind as his audience. I believe that Hitchens is not interested in a response from religious people at all. I believe he is writing to the secular readers. He is trying to get secular folks pissed off and angry at he is that a small vocal minority of religious extremists has such control over so much of American public debate, law, policy, etc...

But this point could be overlooked. After all, Christianity (or as I like to call it, Paulianity) is, by and large, based on taking what Paul said in his Letters - specific letters written to specifuc audiences to address specific issues - and trying to make them into all things for all people at all times.

that your faith in God matters less than his faith in the natural world. Don't fall for his ploy. Many atheists have come to their convictions from a lack of intellectual rigor--from tradition, from coercion in the classroom, from anger at their (faliible) parents, pastors, youth leaders. Any time a rhetorical argument begins with ad hominem attacks, you can be certain that little real evidence, logic or persuasion will follow.

It's a lot like a courtroom - if someone introduces an issue, then they should be examined and cross-examined on that point.

In recent years, the GOP has been very successful in wrapping itself in the bible (not exactly Mitt Romney's bible) so as to gain the support of powerful televangelists. The fact that they constantly are citing religious affiliation as a qualification for office becomes an insult to the intelligence of the voting public. Oh, woops -- I forgot that many voters seem to favor their particular religion over rationality and intelligence.

That's why we who do not believe that the bible is divine find the mix-up between Huckabee and Romney to be truly ironic. Not quite funny -- it's actually too sad to be funny.

I think Hitchens aims to help to divide an alarmingly powerful religious voting bloc - and I approve.

I think it's a misrepresentation to suggest that atheists have "faith" in the natural world (--please, provide examples...), and especially a misrepresentation to suggest that non-believers came to their convictions by a lack of intellectual rigor but instead from emotional damage by some bullying daddy-figure. I'd love to have the list of prominent atheists who fell from the "grace of belief" for lack of intellectual rigor. CS Lewis didn't particularly have a nuturing "daddy" (read Surprised by Joy) but instead came to be a popular Christian apologist.

To the extent that "religion" is front and center in the campaigns of our Republican (and somewhat Democrat) would-be leaders, it becomes public property for criticisms, evaluation, even requests for explanation. As "religion" has shaped policy for the last 7 years in unprecedented ways, it will be scrutinized accordingly, as it must.

Christopher Hitchens is indeed outspoken, but I've seen his writing and heard him say that he would certainly allow people their opinions, but they will not be deemed "sacred" and "untouchable" on the public forum, especially as it pertains to a world leader. By the way, I de-converted from my life-long "beliefs" after approximately 46 years, and it wasn't because of a bad daddy or from my lack of interest in truth, a neglect for the pursuit of logic, or my falling prey to some "rhetorical argument" that began with "ad hominem attacks."

Sorry for the rant..

that the religious get their convictions, unexamined, from their parents, but Not to suggest that the irreligious get their irreligion from their parents. FYI, the most reliable predictor of church attendance (or not) by adults is church attendance by their father.

Have you read a middle school or high school bio textbook lately? Does it discuss the problems of abiogenesis, punctuated equilibrium, mutation rates, information theory, irreducible complexity? Does it even make the distinction between macro and microevolution? Or does it simply state "scientists say" X? So how well have our young people (on both sides of the macroevolution question) thought through their positions on God/atheism? Have they ever been exposed to a critical analysis of apologetics?

I went from a "functional atheist" to a believer, as an adult. (My dad was NOT a church goer, BTW).

WHY DON'T I VOTE FOR A POLY. WHO DOES NOT EXCEPT THE EVOLUTIONARY BEGININGS OF ALL LIFE ON THIS OR ANTOTHER PLANET?BECAUSE WE LIVE IN THE 21ST CENTURY AND THE WORLD IS NOT FLAT! ANYONE WHO DOES NOT EXCEPT TRUTH IN THE NAME OF THEIR IGNORANCE(AND YES I'M SAYING EVOLUTION IS THE ABSOULUTE TRUTH OF OUR BEGININGS AND IF YOU DISAGREE YOU ARE JUST IGNORING TRUTH. AS EINSTIEN SAID A FACT IS A FACT THE TRUTH IS THE TRUTH WHETHER YOU BELIEVE IT ,EXCEPT IT OR COMPREHEND IT AT ALL)IS PLAIN WRONG.YOUR RELIGIOUS UPBRINGING BE DAMMED.THAT'S WHY I WOULD NOT VOTE FOR A CANDIDATE WHO DOES NOT EXCEPT THE TRUTH OF EVOLUTION.HE'S (OR SHE'S) AN IDIOT!

Thanks for the feedback, everyone. In retrospect I think I maybe should have posted two comments: one in which I agreed with Hitchens that he has the right to rule in or rule out whichever candidate he'd like using whatever qualifications he'd like (and, also, to agree with someone like Jeff who says that, if a candidate makes religion a major part of their platform, their religious beliefs are fair game for critique and dissection), and another one in which I wondered about the manner in which Hitchens would have nonbelievers (in a particular religion) view "people of faith" (please forgive the cringe-inducing cliche), given his body of work as a whole. Apologies if I mixed up my thoughts here a bit.

AND YES I KNOW I'M YELLING!

IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY HAS BEEN MORE THAN DISCREDITED.THE "PROFFESSOR"WHO COINED THE FRASE( sorry yeliing again)has been quoted as it being probably the biggest mistake of his professoinal lifeHe was the only acredited (spelling?)pearson who used it in any liturature.Hehas since accepted the evidense the it does not exist in the context he applied it to.

Maybe i should keep yelling ,i seem to spell better when i do.

abiogenesis. Just how does that work, exactly?

Hey truth-decay - I don't have referenceable numbers on this, but I would say that in my experience, the atheists or agnostics are far more likely to have split from parental indoctrination than religious people. At least among me and my friends, we were all raised religiously, and decided somewhere along the line that we didn't buy into it.

And it had nothing to do with biology textbooks, just thinking about the history and structure of Christianity and realizing it didn't make any sense to me, and I couldn't believe anything that didn't make sense to me. "That's why it's called faith" carries no weight with me, because if I'm going to accept a religion without it making sense, why should Christianity be that religion? Some kind of "likelihood of being true" has to be made, otherwise you're just picking what's easiest/most rewarding/most pervasive.

Deciding not to believe in Christianity doesn't mean you've been convinced to believe something else, just that you haven't been convinced to believe in Christianity.