Losing What We Don’t Have?

Christopher Hitchens and S.E. Cupp share a common denominator: they are atheists.  Of course, calling Christopher Hitchens an atheist does not do the man justice, as he can be considered anti-theistmore appropriately; and candidly so.  What I always found interesting about Hitchens, and other anti-theists, is why they spend so much time Raging Against Godif they don’t believe in a God?  Another well know writer and I were talking at CPAC about this subject, and he told me a line that went along like, “for an atheist, arguing against the existence of God is like arguing against the existence of Unicorns.”  Why would someone like Hitchens (and this anti-theistic Classical Liberal blogger) spend so much time trying to disprove the existence of something he is fairly certain, does not exist?  Christopher gives his ruminations on why religion is worth fighting in this interview, and ultimately uses trusty hyperbole to mischaracterize mainstream religion.  I would highly recommend Hitchens’ debate with Dinesh D’Souza if you want to get really dirty in the nitty-gritty about religion, morality, nihilism, and dangerous truths. 

S.E. Cupp is an atheist of another school.  I would dare say she is of the Lockean persuasion (although it is also argued that Locke was a Deist, or agnostic, or what would pass as an Unitarian today): you know, those atheists who don’t find it necessary to convert others to atheism while railing against those religious people who try to convert non-religious people to join their own ranks.  I would question the sincerity of Ms. Cupp’s devotion perhaps, especially after her appearance on Hannity where she reiterated her openness to conversion in the future, “but right now, I am an atheist.”  S.E. and Hannity’s exchange reminded me of George Will’s acknowledgement of his own lack faith in an interview on Colbert.  As a matter of fact, S.E. claims her atheism contributes to the argument in her book, because she does not “have a dog in the fight” (she’s into NASCAR, so I don’t think that was a Michael Vick jab, Eagles fans).  Who better to write on the gradual tearing down of religion (organized or not) by uber-Enlightenment types than an impartial observer?  With this in mind, S.E. Cupp went out to write about the media, liberalism (modern) and their quest to destroy religion in America in her book Losing Our Religion: The Liberal Media’s Attack on Religion. 

The crux of my own thoughts is less about the book itself, as I must admit to not having the chance to read it yet (I am just way behind on my reading list, and some of the books require re-reading and slow reading).  The question that I want to pose to Social Conservatives, Theological Conservatives, Postmodern Conservatives, any Conservative who believes that a religious element remains in our society, government, or culture is: is it to the benefit of the religious Conservatives to have an atheist at bat for them?  I think it is noble for S.E. to jump feet first into this fray, as she notes on Hannity how she finds it odd that atheists force a set of beliefs on those who are religious, when atheism is supposed to be a lack of beliefs.  John Locke noted in his Second Treatise that it is better for an atheist to go on adhering to the religion of the land, because that atheist loses nothing in doing so.  It is unjust to force a religious person to purge his or her religion from his or her life, because a religious person will believe that he or she will have to bereligious in order to reap the rewards in the afterlife (or in most cases, incur the wrath).  I do believe that S.E. does a service to popular culture by writing this book and approaching the topic from her non-religious angle; but ultimately, I believe her atheism hurts her cause.  What is the number one reason to support religion if you do not believe in it?  It is the opiate of the masses!  Surely, if religion is not true, it is still a damn fine tool in controlling those unthinking masses.  At the heart of S.E.’s argument is that tiny acknowledgement of this truth.  People who are fellow non-believers can use her atheism as fodder to make the argument that her, and people like her, only care to use religion for its utility.  Chris Hitchens makes this point to Dinesh D’Souza, how considerate of Dinesh to suggest that religion is good because it is useful.  Dinesh made many more arguments than this, but Chris Hitchens, and others like him, are very keen on singling out that one point and using it to inflame people against supporters of religion as though religious people only hope to keep their heathen compatriots in check. 

I find nothing to be of more interest than these permanent questions.  They have been going on for thousands of years, and will continue until we fade away at the conclusion of our short, seemingly meaningless existence in this moment of time.  I must admit, in the interest of full disclosure, I am rather infatuated with Ms. Cupp (how could you not be?).  I believe that she is fighting a good fight, but I also believe that for those people who are Social Conservatives, there cannot be any atheists in their foxholes.  It makes her argument a bit more hollow, not to be confused with hallow. 

-rj

A Christmas Thought

During the course of the Christmas weekend the only thing that saturated the air more than warm Christmas blessings was perhaps the cold snow in many of the mid-western states. Online friends’ statuses capitulated Yuletide greetings on Facebook; but there was one status that you just looked at and could not help but feel a sense of awe.

God, with us.

Three simple words that reverberate in the breasts of Christians around the world. Providence gracing the world which He created, born of a virgin, and knowing ultimately that He will pay through material life, for the non-material salvation of mankind. How can you not be bewildered by such a premise, or completely awestruck by the ramifications of such a tale?

Of course, there are myriad people who are quick on the draw when it comes to the arguments over the level of “Pagan influence” in our modern Christmas celebration, or the fact that technically Christ was not born on the day during which we celebrate his birth. Let us not over complicate this current discussion by throwing all of these ingredients into the Christmas stew; but rather, it should behoove us to truly appreciate how all of these small contributions have helped to create what we understand as an almost universal meaning for Christmas. The reason why we celebrate Christmas is articulated so beautifully and concisely through the solemn whispering of those three words: God, with us.

Whether or not you are Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Zoroastrian, Deist or even atheist, it is important and proper for us to understand the significance of this celebration for Christians. God among man, of flesh and blood. Whether or not you believe that this was the case should be set aside, and for this moment in our lives we can reflect on the importance of such a man in history, or such a God among us.

Merry Christmas.

-rj

 

Thou Shalt Not Worship False Idols? says Pres. Obama

I cannot blame this particular incident on President Obama personally. We do not know for certain who specifically asked the administration of Georgetown University to cover what is being described as religious iconography. According to Karen Travers at ABC news, the White House is denying that they ever requested any religious icon or the letters representing Christ?s name (IHS ? iota eta sigma) in Greek translated into Latin.

“Decisions made about the backdrop for the speech were made to have a consistent background of American flags, which is standard for many presidential events. Any suggestions to the contrary are simply false,? White House spokesman Shin Inouye told ABC News.

Georgetown University explained their side, not as an argument against the White House?s portrayal of events, but when they were asked by ABC news.

?In coordinating the logistical arrangements for the event, Georgetown honored the White House staff’s request to cover all of the Georgetown University signage and symbols behind the Gaston Hall stage in order to accommodate a backdrop of American flags, consistent with other policy speeches,?

Georgetown refused to answer when they were asked if the same request was made by previous Presidential staff members. I am going to refrain from treading down this slippery slope, because I feel our peer Tom addressed this issue rather intrepidly in his Fukuyama-esque post. Something to consider, is that liberalism in her modern form, denies and rejects the importance of religion and tradition. In doing so, where should the people turn when they are in need? The state. I believe that Webster?s Dictionary talks about a particular political regime that seeks the people?s reverence on a level equal to religion? but I won?t be the one to say it.

-rj