Friday, November 20, 2009

Christopher Hitchens Does Chop Job on Palin in Newsweek

Christopher Hitchens shows his bigotry against Christians, in particular, Sarah Palin, in the November 23 issue of Newsweek.

He's nitpicking from his atheistic worldview. Shame on Palin for once saying creationism should be taught in schools --and now saying both creationism and evolution should be taught in schools. Was this really contradictory on her part? Hardly, but to Hitchens it was. The two statements are absolutely compatible. I bet the Republican base would mostly agree with either statement--considering that most Americans still do not believe that evolution is proven. Science "facts" are supposed to be observeable today, and you can't see any creatures transitioning out of their family today. Besides, no one except the blind atheists can imagine something as complex and beautiful as life and this planet evolving from nothing without a living intelligence behind the process.

Patrick Henry College has the right idea: students should understand both views of origins in order to be "educated." Also, both views have their religious aspects --their presuppositions that cannot be proven by scientific method. Both require the element of faith to believe.

He accuses Sarah of "saying anything for a cheap burst of applause." I couldn't find any evidence of this in his article. He speaks of her "enraged core constituency." Of course, he means the Religious Right --as if we could lay claim to more anger than these atheists!

He said she "hears voices speaking to her of spiritual warfare."

I'll bet, ten to one, she didn't say she "hears voices." But as for spiritual warfare, it's right there in the Bible --and all the Bible believers in the US believe the following from Ephesians 6 is good advice, truth:

11Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. 12For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

Spiritual warfare? Yes, in deed. Jesus experienced it too when Satan tried to tempt Him.

People who hate believers in God and Christ and what they believe are on the wrong side of the spiritual warfare.

Then Hitchens rants about her grandson's father and the fact that Sarah put him in the spotlight, "a fit husband for her daughter and an example to errant youth in general."

Well, what was she supposed to do? They were supposedly in love and having a baby --and the media was having a field day with her teen pregnancy. As parents do, Sarah and her husband hoped for the best, that this lemon could turn out to be lemonade. That the high school sweethearts could end up living happily ever after --as Sarah and Todd have, so far. But boyfriend's family was not as stable or ethical as Palins' --involved as his mother was in some drug problem. We don't know what happened, but Sonny Boy has been busy proving that love and respect won't work on a heel. I respect the Palins for trying --for embracing their daughter's choice, though the teen pregnancy was an embarrassment.

One wonders if Hitchens has children and if they never make mistakes --and what they would say about HIS family if his private life became public --as politicians' family life always does --at least some version of their family life! Whether it's a whitewashed snow job --or a smear --depends on who the politician is. If it's a republican, the liberal media will do what they can to discredit --as Hitchens does so lamely in this poorly reasoned report on the so-called GOP Palin Problem.

The example of the teen pregnancy was that it was OK to carry a teen pregnancy to term; a teen couple could marry and parent with family support; a young father COULD stand by his woman and be responsible --and most importantly, the babies deserve to live -whether they have Down's Syndrome or lousy fathers and mothers who made mistakes.

I don't think of Sarah as intellectual or eloquent enough to be president and her voice lacks the mellifluous quality of a politician or a con artist. But do I think she could do the job well enough? Yeah. I think she could draw good people around her and we'd be SAFER than we are with Obama --who lacks depth himself. Did I respect her for quitting the Alaska governorship? Not really. I haven't heard an explanation that really holds water for me.

But Hitchens shows his bigotry for all the people she represents in this little piece of his --people who believe in God, Christ, Bible, spiritual warfare, Satan, etc.

He cites the time Sarah's church had an African speaker who tells that his village improved once they got rid of some witches practicing witchcraft. There are practitioners of dark arts in foreign countries --and some very spooky beliefs and practices. I recommend the book "The Beautiful Side of Evil" to Mr. Hitchens.

Besides, just because your church has a certain speaker doesn't mean everyone who attends that church shares the view of everyone who steps into the pulpit - (Remember Obama's minister of 20 plus years with whom he claimed not to agree???) especially from foreign churches where the culture is different and the spiritual experiences more dramatic --even miraculous. Who are we to tell foreign people that their perspective of what God has done in their midst is erroneous? Who are we to tell a blind man that he really can't see after Jesus heals him?

Who is Christopher Hitchens to bad mouth a good Christian lady like Sarah Palin? Talk about "spiritual wickedness in high places"....

He admitted that his was a "not so humble opinion." Well, he got that right!

"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible


AndThenSome said...

So, atheists like me who dare criticize religion, especially Christianity, are in league with Satan.

If you choose to literally demonize the opposition, it forces me to wonder if any conversation we have had, or could have, can serve any productive purpose.

Not that I will be missed, of course.

Barb said...

O you would be missed, AndThenSome. I have over 100 unique visitors to this blog on a good day --and 50 or so on a slow day. From all over the world. And hardly any of them give feedback. I appreciate your pleasant tone in opposition. You are a good example of a blogger that way. Christian temperament, I'd call it.

But I do have to tell you that, according to Christian belief, it IS Satan who inspires unbelief --and there is spiritual warfare for everyone's soul. God and Satan are both vying for our loyalty. Satan is a great deceiver, a wolf in sheep's clothing, who appears as an angel of light to deceive many.

Of course, I think the conversation is productive if anyone learns something they didn't already know --or comes to new insight and understanding. or makes friends. I think Christianity is about truth --and that any conversation about truth has productive ---or constructive--purpose.

If you ARE an atheist, you are a testimony from your church of atheistic buddies to me that not every atheist is a mudrake!

But as a group, I think atheists are angrier than right wingers --though we are angry about abortion, gay marriage push, and other legislation that interferes with "free exercise" and church rights. And we are ruffled about what we perceive to be media dishonesty and exaggeration --unfairness.

It's also one thing to criticize religion --I certainly criticize Islam --and another to mock people because they believe in Christ and salvation, resurrection, miracles, redemption, etc.

Barb said...

In fact, seems to me that atheists really don't think that REAL BELIEVERS have any business in gov't. It's ok if they say they are "christian" to get votes --but to say they believe in spiritual warfare, creationism, intelligent design, or the Rapture, or the
2nd Coming of Christ --or prophecy --or the Bible's moral teachings --or prayer and miracles--most atheists I encounter on line do not want those kind elected. They castigate them as stupid, superstitious and anti-intellectual.

mud_rake said...

" forces me to wonder if any conversation we have had, or could have, can serve any productive purpose."

Kind of a slow learner, eh, Some?

AndThenSome said...

I'll make a deal with you then, Barb, if you truly want me to stay.

If three professed conservative Christians who have never commented before indicate I should stick around, I will. Let's give it 3 days--an average of 1 a day. Does that sound reasonable?

mud_rake said...

[she's at church right now begging fellow choir members to post something on this homophobic blog]

Christy said...

First comment on this blog, I'm a Christian, but have a more "liberal" perspective than what Barb says. Although, I really don't even like the term "liberal" I don't think it really defines my perspective in the Christian sphere very well.

I just want to note that spiritual warefare is often defined according to the Bible as between forces we don't see (such as the Devil).

We need to remember that an us vs. them mentality when it comes to Christians vs. athesists doesn't really help either side better understand the other. Constructive crictism and debate are the better route. I have friends who are atheists and they disagree with my belief in God and Jesus, but we can still relate and I can share my views with them because they know that while I disagree with them I am still willing to be their friend without any strings attached.

Sure I would love for them to become a Christian, but I believe my actions speak louder than my religious rhetoric and if they decide to become a Christian it's because God has changed their hearts not that I have changed their mind.

Barb said...

THAT'S THREE, Andthensome. Anonymous, Piano Princess and Christy.

I don't disagree with anything you said, Christy --except perhaps your comment that you have a more liberal perspective "than what Barb says." I'm not sure what you meant here.
Did you mean a more liberal perspective than mine --or more liberal than what you think I say about YOUR perspective?

Barb said...

I guess I didn't note that the Christians had to be "conservative" --and I wonder what your definition is? nor that they had to "indicate why you should stick around."

I'll re-do the blog....