I frequent a large number of atheist blogs. Birds of a feather and whatever whatever.
An observation.
Invariably, whenever these blogs mention one of Christopher Hitchens’ great pieces, it’s always prefaced with something like “While I don’t agree with his politics, Hitchens is a hyper-eloquent atheist, and this is an amazing bit of writing…”
The hidden meaning is “Someone’s political leanings have to mirror mine exactly if I’m going to take them seriously. But in Hitchens’ case, I’ll make this one exception because he’s so brilliant and ballsy.”
Agreed, he’s brilliant and ballsy. He’s one of my favorite writers. But why does someone’s political ideology have to match that of the (almost always leftist) atheist in order for his or her opinions to be taken seriously? Isn’t this close-minded?
Yes, I understand that Republicans (and Hitchens is obviously not one of them) have been vehemently anti-science and pro-creationism as of late. I understand the Republican Party’s current worldview is incompatible with secularism and critical thinking. I get that. It’s one reason why the party is withering away.
But to suggest, as many atheist and/or skeptic blogs do, that the only worthwhile political ideology is a leftist ideology is a sure sign of skeptical aphasia. To suggest that critical thinking need only apply to non-leftist political ideologies is to check one’s brains at the door and surrender to conformity and shallowness.
Liberals don’t deserve a free pass, and Sean Penn should be kicked in the face; it’s true. (Note to Penn: if the jihadists ever get the upper hand in the terror game, I’m pretty sure they will frown upon gay marriage, even more than the Republican Party does. Shocking, I know — they’re not MILK fans, and they view you and Dick Cheney as one and the same, the knuckleheads.)
But back to Hitchens for a moment. The confusion and hostility he generates is what makes him so F-U-N. His ability to antagonize the very people, i.e. the left, whose political philosophies are so very aligned with his, is worth the price of admission and more. He’s primarily a leftist, yes, but a leftist who understands that one’s political stance can be malleable and subject to modification. Hitch isn’t beholden to the left’s bullshit, and he doesn’t comport with the left’s oh-so-strict etiquette and behavioral rules. (He endorsed Bush, after all, and that pretty much makes him Satan in the eyes of the DOWN-WITH–FILL-IN-THE-BLANK! crowd.)
Which dovetails us back to this: the terms skeptic and atheist do not automatically equate with “leftist.” I’m increasingly annoyed by this assumption, which seems to emanate from blogs penned by younger, more impressionable scribes who believe critical thinking begins and ends with court jester Bill Maher.
The world is complex, chaotic and violent, and it adheres to no uniform moral logic (sorry, Noam Chomsky; the jihadists will still kill you, even if you shower them with happy-faced foreign policy and sunshine bunny farts).
Given the complexities of the tempestuous shitscape in which we live, there is room for more than one political ideology, especially in the skeptical arena. Thought diversity is a vital element in the kooky concept we call democracy. And it’s curious that young, so-called “skeptics” and atheists seem completely removed from this concept.
Perhaps they will see the light in 2012 or 2016, when the Democrats’ chief nemesis is — not the Republican Party, which will fade to black — but some militant leftist party whose highest ranking officials are the likes of Tre Arrow and Mumia Abu Jamal.
At that point, using more than one sheet of toilet paper per deuce will be considered a hate crime.
And those of us who don’t follow the lemmings over the cliff will be ostracized, ridiculed and mocked.
I’m sure it will make for big laughs all around.
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — –
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — –
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — –
Comments are closed.
Chatter