stephanie brail

While I certainly respect the philosophy of atheism, what I don’t get is why today’s prominent atheists have gotten so darn insulting towards religious people. Yes, I understand religious fanatics can get out of hand, but to let a small minority of spiritual obsessives define all spiritual people is about as useful as equating extreme environmental activists – the kind who burn down housing developments in the name of saving the planet – with everyday people who simply care and choose to recycle.

Christopher Hitchens is one such angry atheist who recently wrote a scathing commentary published on Slate about his hatred of Rick Perry’s “idiotic religious rhetoric.” If such an article were written about a Muslim leader, we’d all being hearing about Hitchens’ Islamophobia. But Christianity is fair game, particularly Christianity of the evangelical sort, which is all that seems to be given press these days, despite a large number of Christians who aren’t evangelicals. (Catholics, for one.)

Hitchens starts his article sneering in the following manner:

I happened to spend several weeks in Texas earlier this year, while the Lone Star State lay under the pitiless glare of an unremitting drought. After a protracted arid interval, the state’s immodest governor, Rick Perry, announced that he was using the authority vested in him to call for prayers for rain. These incantations and beseechments, carrying the imprimatur of government, were duly offered to the heavens. The heavens responded by remaining, along with the parched lands below, obstinately dry.

Perry did not, of course, suffer politically for making an idiot of himself in this way. Not even the true believers really expect that prayers for precipitation will be answered, or believe that a failed rainmaker is a false prophet.

Granted, I am concerned that Rick Perry is blurring the line between church and state. But let’s just take for face value for a moment that Perry is actually sincere (and not pandering). Heck, it’s not even that important whether Perry is sincere; what is important is that everyday Christians are sincere. And you know what? I was in church this morning here in Texas, and guess what? We prayed for rain!

Does that make me an idiot? Well, for one thing, I was at an Episcopal church, hardly evangelical, and as I have noted here in the past, Episcopalians actually score higher in IQ than atheists. That’s a fact, Hitchens.

Praying for rain doesn’t make someone stupid. Believing that prayers are worthwhile doesn’t mean a person has a lower IQ than someone who doesn’t believe in praying.

Yet here’s Hitchens, another angry atheist, mocking a Christian because the prayers weren’t answered. Maybe he’s right? Maybe we are stupid when we pray for rain?!

I don’t think so. In the least, one of the purposes of prayer is to bring a sense of peace and spiritual connection to the person praying. Whether or not God responds with a package neatly wrapped in a bow isn’t really the point ultimately. But let me answer this simply and briefly:

The short answer is that God doesn’t necessarily respond to prayers in the way you think they should be responded to. And given that the northeast has just gone through devastating floods thanks to Irene, is it possible that the Texas drought is a blessing in disguise? Texas has been experiencing some horrific fires and that is very tragic, but perhaps a hurricane hitting Galveston and Houston would have been much more catastrophic. We just don’t know what’s best sometimes.

But let’s get back to Hitchens and his disdain for religious people. He writes:

In this same auction, his chief conservative rivals are somewhat disabled. Mitt Romney is in no position, and shows no inclination, to campaign on matters spiritual. His own bizarre religion is regarded as just that by much of the mainstream and as heretical at best by the evangelical Christian rank and file. Advantage Perry—at least among Republican voters. Rep. Michele Bachmann, if she is still seriously considered as being in the race, can also only lose from the comparison: Her religious positions are so weird, and so weirdly held, that they have already made her look like a crackpot. (Or revealed her as such: the distinction is a negligible one.)

Hitchens has a right to his opinion, but that does not make him the better man. He’s a smart asshole, is what he is. Hey, I’m not a Mormon, I have no interest in Mormon spirituality, and I think most of it was probably made up. But you know what? If it works for people and gives them a sense of being closer to God, good for them.

As for Michele Bachmann, I have no idea what “weird” religious positions he’s referring to, unless he’s talking about the homosexuality issue. Which, like it or not, is not fringe to Christianity but mainstream – have you ever read the Catholic Catechism? It says right in there that gays are not to have sex or marry but are called to celibacy. Whether you agree with that or not is your business. Personally, I choose to attend a Christian denomination that allows gays to be priests and marry, and that’s my choice as well. But I don’t mock people or hate them for having a different viewpoint.

The irony is that angry atheists like Hitchens and his friend Richard Dawkins are the exact mirror image of the closed-minded religious zealots they decry. They lambast evangelicals for their homophobia – never stopping to think about their own Christianphobia. Hitchens chooses to match what he perceives as mindless, stupid hatred with a full-on hate brigade.

Sure, I have plenty of criticisms of religion and I realize that sometimes evangelicals get a bit attached to their viewpoints. But most of them are good-hearted, kind people who are just trying to live good lives. Do we need to bash them for not sharing our views?

You know, I personally do not believe in the “inerrancy” of the Bible, since I believe it’s more allegorical and divinely inspired vs. actually written by God. But mocking Bible-based Christians won’t get you anywhere with them. What Hitchens is missing in all this is that devout Christians feel a very strong connection to God through their spiritual practice. And no amount of left-brained “logic” is going to persuade someone who is having a right-brained, heart-based experience that they are wrong. We can argue about the Bible being literal or not, and whether a passage in Timothy means that gays shouldn’t marry. But the bottom line is, being a Christian – or a follower of any religion for that matter – has to more do with the experience of God, not the dogma of God.

Because Hitchens has never known that experience, the personal, intimate experience of the divine – either because of his own closed heart or because he never sought the experience – he cannot and will not understand Christians. And in his complete and total lack of understanding and experiential knowledge, filled with arrogance, all he knows how to do is denigrate. 

Like Richard Dawkins, Hitchens is a poor role model for atheists, who really should model qualities of tolerance and openness. Replacing religious dogma with atheistic dogma is not an improvement.