There is an old adage, that I have made reference to in these spaces just recently, which 
says that PETA members are far more likely to dump red paint on rich ladies in furs, then they are to perform the same act against biker gangs wearing leather, because the former stand a far smaller chance of beating the living crap of you.
So it is with the ever anti religious Christopher Hitchens [1], when he says in part:
Before me is a recent report that a student at Pace University in New York City has been arrested for a hate crime in consequence of an alleged dumping of the Quran. Nothing repels me more than the burning or desecration of books, and if, for example, this was a volume from a public or university library, I would hope that its mistreatment would constitute a misdemeanor at the very least. But if I choose to spit on a copy of the writings of Ayn Rand or Karl Marx or James Joyce, that is entirely my business. When I check into a hotel room and send my free and unsolicited copy of the Gideon Bible or the Book of Mormon spinning out of the window, I infringe no law, except perhaps the one concerning litter. Why do we not make this distinction in the case of the Quran? We do so simply out of fear, and because the fanatical believers in that particular holy book have proved time and again that they mean business when it comes to intimidation.
Certainly, there is fear involved. And why, seemingly, is a point missed by Hitch. Think, now, though… Can you imagine, terrorists trying to do what they do, here in America, 50 years ago? Or 60? I think we would find, that most such incidents would be taken care of of hand, by the average American citizen.
Of course, then again, and such citizens generally speaking, were armed. Not so much, today. Indeed, the mere sight of a gun in public, raises suspicion, bordering on panic, even when the gun bearer obviously holds no malice whatever toward anyone . So it is we are the equivalent of the rich women in furs, as opposed to the biker gang in leather. We are much easier to intimidate. easier, it turns out, that is for our own good.
Indeed… We have been so wussified as a people over the last 50 years or so that we don’t have the ability as individuals, to respond to a threat… and individual responses… even up to and including deadly force, is the only way to deal with the kinds of terrorist threats we deal with today.
It is to the point now, were we simply don’t know how to deal with those who threaten violence against us, because it is so far removed from our daily lexicon. We have no idea how to respond to it, and therefore the chances are much greater than we won’t survive actions taken against us, both on the individual level, as well as the cultural level.At this point, as usual when Hitch starts in on the topic of Religion, Hitch starts going astray a little;
Surely that should be to their discredit rather than their credit. Should not the “moderate” imams of On Faith have been asked in direct terms whether they are, or are not, negotiating with a gun on the table?
What Hitch clearly doesn’t understand, or perhaps is glossing over by omission, is the idea that Islam alone, assumes that those who fall outside the faith deserve no respect at all, and actually ACTS on that assumption. That he doesn’t understand, or refuses to understand that rather central point, should not surprise anyone who understands that Hitchens is anti religious, nearly to the point of violence. That lack of understanding, I think, distorts the large picture for him.
Once we make it past his railing against Religion, of which he clearly has no clue, however, his points become somewhat more salient.
The enemies of intolerance cannot be tolerant, or neutral, without inviting their own suicide. And the advocates and apologists of bigotry and censorship and suicide-assassination cannot be permitted to take shelter any longer under the umbrella of a pluralism that they openly seek to destroy.
This is pretty much what I’ve been saying since 9/11. Indeed, I have taken it a step farther, by saying that our move toward pluralism was going to be our undoing.
If you look closely, you’ll notice that many of the arguments Hitchens makes in this area, are not purely anti- religious, per se’, but they make the point that there is an inequity involved. There’s a headlong rush here in the west, to have great respect for Sharia law…indeed, providing funding for prior periods for Muslims in public airports, for example, while we also paying for figurines of Christ on the cross immersed in a small vat of urine, and a figurine of Mary, made of Cattle Dung.
Liberals are forever angry at Jews and Christians for actually speaking their mind, as regards moral issues, and accusing them specifically because their statements on those moral issues happened to coincide with the religious belief. Apparently, freedom of speech doesn’t count, if you happen to be a Christian or Jew… and Gaia forfend that you should ever actually vote in accordance with those Judeo Christian ethics. Meanwhile, these same liberals are rushing headlong into “pluralism” which apparently only encompasses religions not of the Judeo Christian ethos.
There is, I think, an important point to be discussed here , that most of the discussions I’ve seen on the topic, including that of Hitchens haven’t dared to broach; the cultural angle. Are we to assume, as Hitchens apparently does, that the dominant religion and culture, and the culture, are wholly separate items? The point is one I’ve brought up in these spaces several times.
The link, here, is this: Politics, and the law resulting from politics are supposed to be reflections of our deepest values, and both the cultural and a personal level. This is why morality and law are so often linked. Indeed, I have made the point that they are inexorably linked. So, too, is religion linked. That’s because religion, is supposed to be DRIVING our deepest values.
If we understand (as I have argued for years) that the purpose of government is to codify and enforce the values of the culture that gave it life, and also to hopefully extend the influence of that culture within the world… then the influence of religious values in our government will be a product of the degree to which religion is a part of the culture itself. This is not mandating religion; it is simply reacting to, and holding respect for the culture, as government should; this is the proper relationship.
So, before you get started with me on this sub-point, this is not a matter of chruch and state (And the mythical seperation thereof) as much as it is a discussion about the culture, and the influence of religion in it, which is another matter altogether.
Consider the words of John McCandlish Phillips, a former reporter at the NYT:
“The fact is that our founders did not give us a nation frightened by the apparition of the Deity lurking about in our most central places. On Sept. 25, 1789, the text of what was later adopted as the First Amendment was passed by both houses of Congress, and subsequently sent to the states for ratification. On that same day , the gentlemen in the House who had acted to give us that invaluable text took another action: They passed a resolution asking President George Washington to declare a national day of thanksgiving to no less a perceived eminence than almighty God.
That’s president , that?s national, that?s official and, alas, my doubting hearties, it?s God?all wrapped up in a federal action by those who knew what they meant by the non-establishment clause and saw their request as standing at not the slightest variance from it.”
While other religions (Or for that matter, atheists, which I will include as a faith unto itself) are accepted, by both law and the tradition of western culture, they were never intended to be more than a minority influence in our culture. And that seems ot be to be the most troubling to Hitches of the world and to the Randians as well.
Look; Like it or not, our nation was founded on a culture which was largely Judeo Christian into its morality. Its laws, were so constructed. Its procedures and its goals are all based on an written to operating within that morality. Because they were so written, because we were so founded, our laws, our government, and the reality that we operate inside of, means very little to those who do not share that morality. The more we tear down that morality for whatever reason, including being “pluralistic” means that we give up more and more of what we are. Even if, and I say again, even if we separate the religion from the morality, the Design of our nation, and indeed our culture itself, is around that morality. If that morality is superseded by another, what happens to our morality also happens to our nation which was founded on it?
So, all of that rambling comes down to this:
When we see Muslims working to get Sharia law adopted in the west, while making no concessions on the existing culture in the west, what we are in essence talking about is not just religion, but a cultural takeover. Because of the bass-ackward approach to pluralism taken by many on the left in this country and elsewhere in the west, this cultural takeover is given added strength beyond anything it could do alone. This point seems to me and unavoidable conclusion and I think it’s one that Hitchens should be more vocal about. It is, I think, the bigger danger. After all, destroying our culture, destroys us , as well, and just as surely as atomic weaponry would.
The response is ours. The ball’s in our court.