“There is overwhelming evidence from history, anthropology, sociology and psychology that human beings created God, not vice versa. In the past 10,000 years there have been roughly 10,000 religions and 1,000 different gods. What are the chances that one group of people discovered the One True God while everyone else believed in 9,999 false gods? A likelier explanation is that all gods and religion are socially and psychologically constructed. We created gods.”—Michael Shermer
“The most common impediment to clear thinking that a non-believer must confront is the idea that the burden of proof can be fairly placed on his shoulders: "How do you know there is no God? Can you prove it? You atheists are just as dogmatic as the fundamentalists you criticise." This is nonsense: even the devout tacitly reject thousands of gods, along with the cherished doctrines of every religion but their own. Every Christian can confidently judge the God of Zoroaster to be a creature of fiction, without first scouring the universe for evidence of his absence. Absence of evidence is all one ever needs to banish false knowledge. And bad evidence, proffered in a swoon of wishful thinking, is just as damning. But honest reasoning can lead us further into the fields of unbelief, for we can prove that books such as the Bible and the Quran bear no trace of divine authorship. We know far too much about the history of these texts to accept what they say about their own origins. And just imagine how good a book would be if it had been written by an omniscient Being. The moment one views the contents of scripture in this light, one can reject the doctrines of Judaism, Christianity and Islam definitively. The true authors of God's eternal Word knew nothing about the origins of life, the relationship between mind and brain, the causes of illness, or how best to create a viable, global civilisation in the 21st century. That alone should resolve every conflict between religion and science in the latter's favour, until the end of the world. In fact, the notion that any ancient book could be an infallible guide to living in the present gets my vote for being the most dangerously stupid idea on earth. What remains for us to discover, now and always, are those truths about our world that will allow us to survive and fully flourish. For this, we need only well-intentioned and honest inquiry - love and reason. Faith, if it is ever right about anything, is right by accident.”—Sam Harris, New Statesman: Faith No More
“Stand-up comedians are not the same as wits and columnists and humorists. Strip away the showbiz and a pure stand-up is still a turn, a music-hall act. It’s clowning, and clowns are always tragic figures. Clowns’ comedy came from the inevitability of their defeat, from the gulf between what they want – whether it’s sex with their bored partner or a socialist utopia – and what they are going to get, which is nothing, nothing and a kick in the goolies. ”—http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/04/where-are-all-right-wing-stand-ups
“The African-American stand-up Chris Rock maintained that stand-up comedy should always be punching upwards. It’s a heroic little struggle. You can’t be a right-wing clown without some character caveat, some vulnerability, some obvious flaw. You’re on the right. You’ve already won. You have no tragedy. You’re punching down. You can be a right-wing comedy columnist, away from the public eye, a disembodied, authoritarian presence that doesn’t need to show doubt. Who could be on a stage, crowing about their victory and ridiculing those less fortunate than them without any sense of irony, shame or self-knowledge? That’s not a stand-up comedian. That’s just a cunt.”—Stewart Lee
New Statesman & Online Feminism
In March, New Statesman published an article written by Sadie Smith titled, “There’s no point in online feminism if it’s an exclusive, Mean Girls club,” and yesterday published a piece by Martha Gill titled, “CAPITAL LETTERS, affectedly boisterous sex, little girl voice: internet feminists all write the same. This is a problem.”
Smith writes about being sneered at by what she calls the “Online Wimmin Mob” who aren’t “good, honest feminists” because they demand your privilege be checked before walking into their club. She finds the term “cis” to be insulting and forced upon her without her consent by these “bullies” and wants to “reclaim” and “rehabiliate” the word for its “misuse” against her.
Gill points out that finding feminist commentary online is easy because you can just scan for “SUDDEN OUTBURSTS OF CAPITAL LETTERS, AS IF CROSS, BUT IN A CUTE WAY, LIKE A CHILD.” She then slips into dangerous writing for someone who claims to be a feminist by trying to differentiate between “excusing rape” and “lowering the risks of rape.” Apparently, “these two concepts have become muddled together and safety advice is being compromised” because Twitter feminists react with so much anger and drama.
Let me preface the myriad of problems with these two articles by exclaiming that not everyone writes for a famous publication, not everyone has a political platform, not everyone is a teacher or professor or instructor, and not everyone is a committee organizer. The people who are not able to voice their political concerns as part of their day jobs do have access to the Internet, though. Even as a broke graduate student, I can access WiFi at local coffee shops, public libraries and even some pubs. My day job does not allow me the space to speak about intersectional feminism and so I use my Twitter handle to type openly and freely about social inequalities.
To read Smith and Gill patronize my social platform and reduce it to a comedic movie about teenage bullying while calling me a “little girl” is not only infantilizing everything I fight for, but a sign of deeply internalized patriarchy and a prime example of privilege. These women have a superior voice by writing for a large publication and decide to use their authority to negate the voices of other women. Online feminism and Twitter feminism is skewed as a slanderous cesspool to further muffle the women who rely on the Internet to communicate structural oppressions.
What’s most unsettling about these two articles is their format begins by addressing the “bully” type of feminists (the mob of online women), how the “good” feminists are being attacked by them, and they both end with deeply problematic arguments that fall in line with patriarchal and misogynistic bullshit. What Smith is really upset about is having to use the term “cisgender,” which was formed to break away from the false belief that there is a “normal” gender. What Gill is really upset about is that feminism has gone too far because there is actually a way to “lower the risk” of rape, even though it is proven time and time again that the only reaspon rape exists is because rapists exist.
The formula is apparent. Self-claming feminists abuse their authority to shut other oppressed women up before arguing offensive, sexist and transphobic views. By labelling the women who will fight back against them as a mob of bullies, they have normalized themselves as the good, honest feminists that the readers should trust. Even the way Smith decides to end her article is highly manipulative, by saying that she is defending the truly oppressed - the gang rape on the Indian bus, Malala shot by the Taliban, transwomen facing violence, Steubenville - and then there are the Twitter feminists doing nothing, as they are far too busy yelling at each other over privilege checking instead of fighting the same global oppressions. It’s irresponsible and repulsive on her part to use such horrific events to make a comparison that echoes a lot of the misogynist responses I have heard to my own feminism. “You talk about sexism in video games? You talk about getting paid slightly less than men? What about women with real problems, little girl?”
And when that comes from a woman and I call her out on her crap, I’m the bully. I refuse to be silenced and have my online platform taken away from me just to feed into cisnormative internalized patriarchy. If I am slandered as a bully because I am standing up for my and others’ injustices, then I will just keep calling out louder. Just like reverse-racism and misandry, reverse-bullying does not exist.
Richard Dawkins interviews Christopher Hitchens, December 19, 2011, New Statesman
RD: I’ve been reading some of your recent collections of essays - I’m astounded by your sheer erudition. You seem to have read absolutely everything. I can’t think of anybody since Aldous Huxley who’s so well read.
CH: It may strike some people as being broad but it’s possibly at the cost of being a bit shallow. I became a journalist because one didn’t have to specialise. I remember once going to an evening with Umberto Eco talking to Susan Sontag and the definition of the word “polymath” came up. Eco said it was his ambition to be a polymath; Sontag challenged him and said the definition of a polymath is someone who’s interested in everything and nothing else. I was encouraged in my training to read widely -to flit and sip, as Bertie [Wooster] puts it - and I think I’ve got good memory retention. I retain what’s interesting to me, but I don’t have a lot of strategic depth.
A lot of reviewers have said, to the point of embarrassing me, that I’m in the class of Edmund Wilson or even George Orwell. It really does remind me that I’m not. But it’s something to at least have had the comparison made - it’s better than I expected when I started.
RD: As an Orwell scholar, you must have a particular view of North Korea, Stalin, the Soviet Union, and you must get irritated - perhaps even more than I do - by the constant refrain we hear: “Stalin was an atheist.”
CH: We don’t know for sure that he was. Hitler definitely wasn’t. There is a possibility that Himmler was. It’s very unlikely but it wouldn’t make any difference, either way. There’s no mandate in atheism for any particular kind of politics, anyway.
RD: The people who did Hitler’s dirty work were almost all religious.
CH: I’m afraid the SS’s relationship with the Catholic Church is something the Church still has to deal with and does not deny.
RD: Can you talk a bit about that - the relationship of Nazism with the Catholic Church?
CH: The way I put it is this: if you’re writing about the history of the 19305 and the rise of totalitarianism, you can take out the word “fascist”, if you want, for Italy, Portugal, Spain, Czechoslovakia and Austria and replace it with “extreme - right Catholic party”.
Almost all of those regimes were in place with the help of the Vatican and with understandings from the Holy See. It’s not denied. These understandings quite often persisted after the Second World War was over and extended to comparable regimes in Argentina and elsewhere.
RD: But there were individual priests who did good things.
CH: Not very many. You would know their names if there were more of them. When it comes to National Socialism, there’s no question there’s a mutation, a big one - the Nazis wanted their own form of worship. Just as they thought they were a separate race, they wanted their own religion. They dug out the Norse gods, all kinds of extraordinary myths and legends from the old sagas. They wanted to control the churches . They were willing to make a deal with them.
The first deal Hitler made with the Catholic Church was the Konkordat The Church agreed to dissolve its political party and he got control over German education, which was apretty good deal. Celebrations of his birthday were actually by order from the pulpit. When Hitler survived an assassination attempt, prayers were said, and so forth. But there’s no doubt about it, [the Nazis] wanted control - and they were willing to clash with the churches to get it.
There’s another example. You swore on Almighty God that you would never break your oath to the Führer. This is not even secular, let alone atheist.
RD: There was also grace before meals, personally thanking Adolf Hitler.
CH: I believe there was. Certainly, you can hear the oath being taken - there are recordings of it - but this, Richard, is a red herring. It’s not even secular. They’re changing the subject.
RD: But it comes up over and over again.
CH: You mentioned North Korea. It is, in every sense, a theocratic state. It’s almost supernatural, in that the births of the [ruling] Kim family are considered to be mysterious and accompanied by happenings. It’s anecrocracy or mausolocracy, but there’s no possible way you could say it’s a secular state, let alone an atheist one.
Attempts to found new religions should attract our scorn just as much as the alliances with the old ones do. All they’re saying is that you can’t claim Hitler was distinctively or specifically Christian: “Maybe if he had gone on much longer, he would have de-Christianised a bit more.” This is all a complete fog of nonsense, It’s bad history and it’s bad propaganda.
RD: And bad logic, because there’s no connection between atheism and doing horrible things, whereas there easily can be a connection in the case of religion, as we see with modern Islam.
CH: To the extent that they are new religions - Stalin worship and Kim Il-sungism - we, like all atheists, regard them with horror.
RD: You debated with Tony Blair. I’m not sure I watched that. I love listening to you [but] I can’t bear listening to … Well, I mustn’t say that. I think he did come over as rather nice on that evening.
CH: He was charming, that evening. And during the day, as well.
RD: What was your impression of him?
CH: You can only have one aim per debate. I had two in debating with Tony Blair. The first one was to get him to admit that it was not done - the stuff we complain of - in only the name of religion. That’s a cop -out. The authority is in the text. Second, I wanted to get him to admit, if possible, that giving money to a charity or organising a charity does not vindicate a cause.
I got him to the first one and I admired his honesty. He was asked by the interlocutor at about half-time: “Which of Christopher’s points strikes you as the best?” He said: “I have to admit, he’s made his case, he’s right. This stuff, there is authority for it in the canonical texts, in Islam, Judaism.”
At that point, I’m ready to fold - I’ve done what I want for the evening.
We did debate whether Catholic charities and so on were a good thing and I said: “They are but they don’t prove any point and some of them are only making up for damage done.” For example, the Church had better spend a lot of money doing repair work on its Aids policy in Africa, [to make up for preaching] that condoms don’t prevent disease or, in some cases, that they spread it. It is iniquitous. It has led to a lot of people dying, horribly. Also, I’ve never looked at some of the ground operations of these charities - apart from Mother Teresa - but they do involve a lot of proselytising, a lot ofpropaganda. They’re not just giving out free stuff. They’re doing work to recruit.
RD: And Mother Teresa was one of the worst offenders?
CH: She preached that poverty was a gift from God. And she believed that women should not be given control over the reproductive cycle. Mother Teresa spent her whole life making sure that the one cure for poverty we know is sound was not implemented.
So Tony Blair knows this but he doesn’t have an answer. IfI say, “Your Church preaches against the one cure for poverty,” he doesn’t deny it, but he doesn’t affirm it either.
But remember, I did start with a text and I asked him to comment on it first, but he never did. Cardinal Newman said he would rather the whole world and everyone in it be painfully destroyed and condemned for ever to eternal torture than one sinner go unrebuked for the stealing of a sixpence. It’s right there in the centre of the Apologia. The man whose canonisation Tony had been campaigning for.
You put these discrepancies in front of him and he’s like all the others. He keeps two sets of books. And this is also, even in an honest person, shady.
RD: It’s like two minds, really. One notices this with some scientists.
CH: I think we all do it abit.
RD: Do we?
CH: We’re all great self-persuaders.
RD: But do we hold such extreme contradictions in our heads?
CH: We like to think our colleagues would point them out, in our group, anyway. No one’s pointed out to me in reviewing my God book Goals Not Great that there’s a flat discrepancy between the affirmation he makes on page X and the affirmation he makes on page Y.
RD: But they do accuse you of being a contrarian, which you’ve called yourself…
CH: Well, no, I haven’t. I’ve disowned it. I was asked to address the idea of it and I began by saying it’s got grave shortcomings as an idea, but I am a bit saddled with it.
RD: I’ve always been very suspicious of the leftright dimension in politics.
CH: Yes; it’s broken down with me.
RD: It’s astonishing how much traction the left-right continuum [has] … If you know what someone thinks about the death penalty or abortion, then you generally know what they think about everything else. But you clearly break that rule.
CH: I have one consistency, which is [being] against the totalitarian - on the left and on the right. The totalitarian, to me, is the enemy - the one that’s absolute, the one that wants control over the inside of your head, not just your actions and your taxes. And the origins ofthat are theocratic, obviously. The beginning of that is the idea that there is a supreme leader, or infallible pope, or a chief rabbi, or whatever, who can ventriloquise the divine and tell us what to do.
That has secular forms with gurus and dictators, of course, but it’s essentially the same. There have been some thinkers - Orwell is pre-eminent - who understood that, unfortunately, there is innate in humans a strong tendency to worship, to become abject. So we’re not just fighting the dictators. We’re criticising our fellow humans for trying to short-cut, to make their lives simpler, by surrendering and saying, “[If] you offer me bliss, of course I’m going to give up some of my mental freedom for that.” We say it’s a false bargain: you’ll get nothing. You’re a fool.
RD: That part of you that was, or is, of the radical left is always against the totalitarian dictators.
CH: Yes. I was a member of the Trotskyist group - for us, the socialist movement could only be revived if it was purged of Stalinism … It’s very much a point for our view that Stalinism was a theocracy.
RD: One of my main beefs with religion is the way they label children as a “Catholic child” or a “Muslim child”. I’ve become a bit of a bore about it.
CH: You must never be afraid ofthat charge, any more than stridency.
RD: I will remember that.
CH: If I was strident, it doesn’t matter - I was a jobbing hack, I bang my drum. You have a discipline in which you are very distinguished. You’ve educated a lot of people; nobody denies that, not even your worst enemies. You see your discipline being attacked and defamed and attempts made to drive it out.
Stridency is the least you should muster … It’s the shame of your colleagues that they don’t form ranks and say, “Listen, we’re going to defend our colleagues from these appalling and obfuscating elements.”
If you go on about something, the worst thing the English will say about you, as we both know - as we can say of them, by the way - is that they’re boring.
RD: Indeed. Only this morning, I was sent a copy of [advice from] a British government web - site, called something like “The Responsibilities of Parents”. One of these responsibilities was “determine the child’s religion”. Literally, determine. It means establish, cause … I couldn’t ask for a clearer illustration, because, sometimes, when I make my complaint about this, I’m told nobody actually does label children Catholic children or Muslim children.
CH: Well, the government does. It’s borrowed, as far as I can see, in part from British imperial policy, in turn borrowed from Ottoman and previous empires - you classify your new subjects according to their faith. You can be an Ottoman citizen but you’re a Jewish one or an Armenian Christian one. And some of these faiths tell their children that the children of other faiths are going to hell. I think we can’t ban that, nor can we call it “hate speech”, which I’m dubious about anyway, but there should be a wrinkle of disapproval.
RD: I would call it mental child abuse.
CH: I can’t find a way, as a libertarian, of saying that people can’t raise their children, as they say, according to their rights. But the child has rights and society does, too. We don’t allow female - and I don’t think we should countenance male - genital mutilation.
Now, it would be very hard to say that you can’t tell your child that they are lucky and they have joined the one true faith. I don’t see how you stop it. I only think the rest of society should look at it with a bit of disapproval, which it doesn’t. If you’re a Mormon and you run for office and say, “Do you believe in the golden plates that were dug up by Joseph Smith?” - which [Mitt] Romney hasn’t been asked yet - sorry, you’re going to get mocked. You’re going to get laughed at.
RD: There is a tendency among liberals to feel that religion should be off the table.
CH: Or even that there’s anti-religious racism, which I think is a terrible limitation.
RD: Romney has questions to answer.
CH: Certainly, he does. The question of Mormon racism did come up, to be fair, and the Church did very belatedly make amends for saying what, in effect, it had been saying: that black people’s souls weren’t human, quite. They timed it suspiciously for the passage of legislation. Well, OK, then they grant the right of society to amend [the legislation]. To that extent, they’re opportunists.
RD: But what about the daftness of Mormonism? The fact that Joseph Smith was clearly a charlatan -
CH: I know, it’s extraordinary.
RD: I think there is a convention in America that you don’t tackle somebody about their religion.
CH: Yes, and in a way it’s attributed to pluralism. And so, to that extent, one wants to respect it, but I think it can be exploited. By many people, including splinter-group Mormons who still do things like plural marriage and, very repulsively, compulsory dowries - they basically give away their daughters, often to blood relatives. And also kinship marriages that are too close. This actually won’t quite do. When it is important, they tend to take refuge in: “You’re attacking my fundamental right.” I don’t think they really should be allowed that.
RD: Do you think America is in danger of becoming a theocracy?
CH: No, I don’t. The people who we mean when we talk about that - maybe the extreme Protestant evangelicals, who do want a God-run America and believe it was founded on essentially fundamentalist Protestant principles - I think they may be the most overrated threat in the country.
RD: Oh, good.
CH: They’ve been defeated everywhere. Why is this? In the 19205, they had a string of victories. They banned the sale, manufacture and distribution and consumption of alcohol. They made it the constitution. They more or less managed to ban immigration from countries that had non-Protestant, non-white majorities.
From these victories, they have never recovered. They’ll never recover from [the failure of] Prohibition. It was their biggest defeat. They’ll never recover from the Scopes trial. Every time they’ve tried [to introduce the teaching of creationism], the local school board or the parents or the courts have thrown it out and it’s usually because of the work of people like you, who have shown that it’s nonsense.
They try to make a free speech question out of it butthey will fail with that, also. People don’t want to come from the town or the state or the county that gets laughed at.
CH: In all my tours around the South, it’s amazing how many people - Christians as well - want to disprove the idea that they’re all in thrall to people like [the fundamentalist preacher Jerry] Falwell. They don’t want to be a laughingstock.
CH: And if they passed an ordinance saying there will be prayer in school every morning from now on, one of two things would happen: it would be overthrown in no time by all the courts, withbarrels of laughter heaped over it, or people would say: “Very well, we’re starting with Hindu prayer on Monday.” They would regret it so bitterly that there are days when I wish they would have their own way for a short time.
RD: Oh, that’s very cheering.
CH: I’m a bit more worried about the extreme, reactionary nature of the papacy now. But that again doesn’t seem to command very big allegiance among the American congregation. They are disobethent on contraception, flagrantly; on divorce; on gay marriage, to an extraordinary degree that I wouldn’t have predicted; and they’re only holding firm on abortion, which, in my opinion, is actually a very strong moral question and shouldn’t be decided lightly. I feel very squeamish about it. I believe that the unborn child is a real concept, in other words.
We needn’t go there, but I’m not a complete abortion-on-demand fanatic. I think it requires a bit of reflection. But anyway, even on that, the Catholic Communion is very agonised. And also, [when] you go and debate with them, very few of them could tell you very much about what the catechism really is. It’s increasingly cultural Catholicism.
RD: That is true, of course.
CH: So, really, the only threat from religious force in America is the same as it is, I’m afraid, in many other countries - from outside. And it’s jihadism, some of it home -grown, but some of that is so weak and so self-discrediting.
RD: It’s more of aproblem in Britain.
CH: And many other European countries, where its alleged root causes are being allowed slightly too friendly an interrogation, I think. Make that much too friendly.
RD: Some of our friends are so worried about Islam that they’re prepared to lend support to Christianity as a kind of bulwark against it.
CH: I know many Muslims who, in leaving the faith, have opted to go … to Christianity or via it to non -belief. Some of them say it’s the personality of Jesus of Nazareth. The mild and meek one, as compared to the rather farouche, physical, martial, rather greedy …
CH: … Muhammad. I can see that that might have an effect.
RD: Do you ever worry that if we win and, so to speak, destroy Christianity, that vacuum would be filled by Islam?
CH: No, in a funny way, I don’t worry that we’ll win. All that we can do is make absolutely sure that people know there’s a much more wonderful and interesting and beautiful alternative. No, I don’t think that Europe would fill up with Muslims as it emptied of Christians. Christianity has defeated itself in that it has become a cultural thing. There really aren’t believing Christians in the way there were generations ago.
RD: Certainly in Europe that’s true - but in America?
CH: There are revivals, of course, and among Jews as well. But I think there’s a very long-running tendency in the developed world and in large areas elsewhere for people to see the virtue of secularism, the separation of church and state, because they’ve tried the alternatives … Every time something like a jihad or a sharia movement has taken over any country - admittedly they’ve only been able to do it in very primitive cases - it’s a smouldering wreck with no productivity.
RD: Total failure. If you look at religiosity across countries of the world and, indeed, across the states of the US, you find that religiosity tends to correlate with poverty and with various other indices of social deprivation.
CH: Yes. That’s also what it feeds on. But I don’t want to condescend about that. I know a lot of very educated, very prosperous, very thoughtful people who believe.
RD: Do you think [Thomas] Jefferson and [James] Madison were deists, as is often said?
CH: I think they fluctuated, one by one. Jefferson is the one I’m more happy to pronounce on. The furthest he would go in public was to incline to a theistic enlightened view but, in his private correspondence, he goes much further. He says he wishes we could return to the wisdom of more than 2,000 years ago. That’s in his discussion of his own Jefferson Bible, where he cuts out everything supernatural relating to Jesus.
But also, very importantly, he says to his nephew Peter Carr in a private letter [on the subject of belief]: “Do not be frightened from this inquiry by any fear of its consequences. If it ends in a belief that there is no God, you will find incitements to virtue in the comfort and pleasantness you feel in its exercise and the love of others which it will procure you.” Now, that can only be written by someone who’s had that experience.
RD: It’s very good, isn’t it?
CH: In my judgement, it’s an internal reading, but I think it’s a close one. There was certainly no priest at his bedside. But he did violate a rule of C S Lewis’s and here I’m on Lewis’s side. Lewis says it is a cop -out to say Jesus was a great moralist. He said it’s the one thing we must not say; it is a wicked thing to say. If he wasn’t the Son of God, he was a very evil impostor and his teachings were vain and fraudulent.
You may not take the easy route here and say: “He may not have been the Son of God and he may not have been the Redeemer, but he was a wonderful moralist.” Lewis is more honest than Jefferson in this point. I admire Lewis for saying that. Rick Perry said it the other day.
RD: Jesus could just have been mistaken.
CH: He could. It’s not unknown for people to have the illusion that they’re God or the Son. It’s a common delusion but, again, I don’t think we need to condescend. Rick Perry once said: “Not only do I believe that Jesus is my personal saviour but I believe that those who don’t are going to eternal punishment.” He was challenged at least on the last bit and he said, “I don’t have the right to alter the doctrine. I can’t say it’s fine for me and not for others.”
RD: So we ought to be on the side of these fundamentalists?
CH: Not “on the side”, but I think we should say that there’s something about their honesty that we wish we could find.
RD: Which we don’t get in bishops …
CH: Our soft-centred bishops at Oxford and other people, yes.
RD: I’m often asked why it is that this republic [of America], founded in secularism, is so much more religious than those western European countries that have an official state religion, like Scandinavia and Britain.
CH: [Alexis] de Tocqueville has it exactly right. If you want a church in America, you have to build it by the sweat of your own brow and many have. That’s why they’re attached to them.
CH: [Look at] the Greek Orthodox community in Brooklyn. What’s the first thing it will do? It will build itself a little shrine. The Jews - not all of them - remarkably abandoned their religion very soon after arriving from the shtetl.
RD: Are you saying that most Jews have abandoned their religion?
CH: Increasingly in America. When you came to escape religious persecution and you didn’t want to replicate it, that’s a strong memory. The Jews very quickly secularised when they came. American Jews must be the most secular force on the planet now, as a collective. If they are a collective - which they’re not, really.
RD: While not being religious, they often still observe the Sabbath and that kind of thing.
CH: There’s got to be something cultural. I go to Passover every year. Sometimes, even I have a seder, because I want my child to know that she does come very distantly from another tradition. It would explain if she met her great grandfather why he spoke Yiddish. It’s cultural, but the Passover Seder is also the Socratic forum. It’s dialectical. It’s accompanied by wine. It’s got the bones of quite a good discussion in it.
And then there is manifest destiny. People feel America is just so lucky. It’s between two oceans, filled with minerals, wealth, beauty. It does seem providential to many people.
RD: Promised land, city on a hill.
CH: All that and the desire for another Eden. Some secular Utopians came here with the same idea.
Thomas Paine and others all thought of America as a great new start for the species.
RD: But that was all secular.
CH: A lot of it was, but you can’t get away from the liturgy: it’s too powerful. You will end up saying things like “promised land” and it can be mobilised for sinister purposes. But in a lot of cases, it’s a mild belief. It’s just: “We should share our good luck.”
RD: I’ve heard another theory that, America being a country of immigrants, people coming from Europe, where they left their extended family and left their support system, were alone and they needed something.
CH: Surely that was contained in what I j ust …
RD: Maybe it was.
CH: The reason why most of my friends are non-believers is not particularly that they were engaged in the arguments you and I have been having, but they were made indifferent by compulsory religion at school.
RD: They got bored by it.
CH: They’d had enough of it. They took from it occasionally whatever they needed - if you needed to get married, you knew where to go. Some of them, of course, are religious and some of them like the music but, generally speaking, the British people are benignly indifferent to religion.
RD: And the fact that there is an established church increases that effect. Churches should not be tax-free the way that they are. Not automatically, anyway.
CH: No, certainly not. If the Church has demanded that equal time be given to creationist or pseudo-creationist speculations … any Church that teaches that in its school and is in receipt of federal money from the faith-based initiative must, by law, also teach Darwinism and alternative teachings, in order that the debate is being taught. I don’t think they want this .
CH: Tell them if they want equal time, we’ll jolly have it. That’s why they’ve always been comparative religion.
RD: Comparative religion would be one of the weapons, I suspect.
CH: It’s got so insipid in parts of America now a lot of children are brought up - as their aren’t doing it and leave it to the schools the schools are afraid of it- with no knowof any religion of any kind. I would like children to know what religion is aboutbecause [otherwise] some guru or cult or revivalists will sweep them up.
RD: They’re vulnerable. I also would like them know the Bible for literary reasons.
CH: Precisely. We both, I was pleased to see, have written pieces about the King James Bible. The AV [Authorised Version] , as it was called in my boyhood. A huge amount of English literature would be opaque if people didn’t know it.
RD: Absolutely, yes. Have you read some of the modern translations? “Futile, said the preacher. Utterly futile.”
CH: He doesn’t!
RD: He does, honestly. “Futile, futile said the priest. It’s all futile.”
CH: That’s Lamentations.
RD: No, it’s Ecclesiastes. “Vanity, vanity.”
CH: “Vanity, vanity.” Good God. That’s the least religious book in the Bible. That’s the one that Orwell wanted at his funeral.
RD: I bet he did. I sometimes think the poetry comes from the intriguing obscurity of mistranslation. “When the sound of the grinding is low, the grasshopper is heard in the land … The grasshopper shall be aburden.” What the hell?
CH: The Book of Job is the other great non-religious one, I always feel. “Man is born to trouble as the sparks fly upward.” Try to do without that. No, I’m glad we’re on the same page there. People tell me that the recitation of the Quran can have the same effect if you understand the original language. I wish I did. Some of the Catholic liturgy is attractive.
RD: I don’t know enough Latin to judge that.
CH: Sometimes one has just enough to be irritated.
RD: Yes [laughs]. Can you say anything about Christmas?
CH: Yes . There was going to be a winter solstice holiday for sure. The dominant religion was going to take it over and that would have happened without Dickens and without others.
RD: The Christmas tree comes from Prince Albert; the shepherds and the wise men are all made up.
CH: Cyrenius wasn’t governor of Syria, all ofthat. Increasingly, it’s secularised itself. This “Happy Holidays” - I don’t particularly like that, either.
RD: Horrible, isn’t it? “Happy holiday season.
CH: I prefer our stuff about the cosmos.