The Golden Strawberry

Can I nominate this article to be the worst ever written on Comment Is Free? That’s a large assertion I know, but it’s so goddam awful it can’t just pass without comment.

Theo Hobson is concerned at the rise of “Militant Atheists” like Hitchens, Dawkins et al. Which is understandable, seeing as he believes in God and all that. So what is his beef? Well, atheism is “pretentious and muddled”. Furthermore:

Atheism is the belief that the demise of religion, and the rise of “rationality”, will make the world a better place. Atheism therefore entails an account of history - a story of liberation from a harmful error called “religion”. This narrative is jaw-droppingly naive.

No Theo old fruit, I think you’re confusing “Atheism”, where someone believes there is no God, with “Antitheism”, which asserts that religion is essentially bad for the world. They are two different things. Strange that someone who says that atheists don’t understand the nature of religion should then not understand that there are different strands in the non-believing ‘church’ as well - agnostics, atheists and antitheists. But then, as I will contend, this is because he is a prat. Theo goes on:

Some will quibble with the above definition. Atheism is just the rejection of God, of any supernatural power, they will say, it entails no necessary belief in historical progress. This is disingenuous. The militant atheists have a moral mission: to improve the world by working towards the eradication of religion.

Yes, the militant atheists do, but other atheists don’t, as said above. This is the equivilent of saying “Muslim fundamentalists commit acts of terrorism, therefore all Muslims are terrorists”. Abhorrent, in other words.

Let me take a step back, and ask a rather basic question. What is this thing that the atheists hate so much? What is religion? Believe it or not, I don’t know the answer.

…”but I’ll carry on writing anyway…”

Indeed it seems to me that anyone who does claim to know is underestimating the complexity of the topic considerably. If the atheist deigns to define religion at all, he is likely to do so briskly and conventionally, as belief in and worship of some species of supernatural power. It’s a terribly inadequate definition. Dictionaries would do better to leave a blank, to admit ignorance.

But religion is surely worshipping some supreme being - if not what are Christianity and Islam? Cults? Gentlemen’s clubs? Anyway, the article plods on…

In reality, “religion” is far wider than a belief in a supernatural power. This is only one aspect of what we mean by “religion”. For example there is surely something religious in the communal ecstasy of a rave, or a pop concert, or a play, or a sporting event, or a political rally. Some would say that these events are quasi-religious, that they echo religious worship, but are distinct from it. But how on earth is one to make the distinction? Is a yoga class “religious”?

This is just ridiculous. He’s confusing religion with hobbies - like yoga. Religion can have connections between stuff like football, for instance - whole books have been written on the subject. But there is a difference between me being an Oldham Athletic supporter and being religious. I don’t think Joe Royle created the universe, for instance.

Also confusing is this little throwaway:

Never mind that only a tiny proportion of British Christians are creationists

Well in that case what do they believe in? And what does this make the Bible; a sacred text or just a bunch of things that can be ignored at will? Theo doesn’t say. He just goes on being a little too hypocritical for his own good:

I consider the atheist’s desire to generalise about religion to be a case of intellectual cowardice.

Not a charge that could ever be levelled against Theo Hobson, who did not once generalise about atheism. No, sir.

And looking at his CiF profile, there’s more incoherence. It doesn’t make sense to me anyway, but that could be because it’s nearly 4am and I can’t get to sleep:

For a few years now Theo has been trying to ‘come out’ as a post-ecclesial Christian theologian. He says we have to reinvent this religion away from its institutional past. A truly postmodern theology will serve this end. So far, so-called postmodern theology has been neo-orthodox, a highly erudite dead-end.

What the frig is postmodern theology? Does it think, as some postmodern historians do, that are all texts are fiction? How does the Bible come into that? No wonder it’s hit a dead end.

I am sure there will be more literate critiques of Hitchens’ book, but this sure ain’t one of them.

Cory

Libby Purves:

The launch of Irn Bru flavoured sausages is a cause for serious celebration.

Deep fried Irn-Bru flavoured sausage, anyone?

Cory

Certainly, one of the main criticisms of the US intervention in Iraq has been that not enough troops were sent to occupy the country and oversee the transition from Baathist fascism to some sort of democratic state. In a country of 20 million people, 160,000 troops just does not cut the mustard. In this sense, the US could have benefited from more imperialism. As Geoffrey Wheatcroft says here, the Euston group should not be ashamed to openly advocate benign Western imperialism in place of native dictatorships. 

Perhaps some form of imperial occupation is necessary in the short term, in order to ensure that the country under Western jurisdiction comes out in the end with the proper institutions, constitution, infrastructure and welfare appartus necessary for a democratic society to function? I recently read Niall Fergusons excellent book Colossus, in which he argues that America need to become more imperialist, not less, if it wants to succeed in its mission to spread liberty throughout the world.

Think about it - if the US had sent 500,000 troops to Iraq and imposed martial law straight after the destruction of Saddams regime, thus preserving much of the Iraqi state and infrastructure, and had not abolished completly the Iraqi armed forces - the country would arguably be in much better shape than it is today. The insurgency would not have had a massive influx of Iraqi army recruits, it would not have had access to old Iraqi army caches of weapons and explosives, the army could have been used to guard the borders against infiltration by foreign jihadist forces etc.

When Norman Geras says in his response to Wheatcroft that:

The support for the aforementioned interventions by the people Wheatcroft is talking about was based on human rights and just war considerations, not on empire-building ones. Indeed, the very principles informing that support rule out support for imperialism, even a putatively ‘progressive’ imperialism. Self-determination and political independence for all peoples is one of the basic rights we Eustonians defend.

Self determination and political independence is very hard for a nation to acheive when it is infested with terrorists and fascists, the existence of which could have been prevented by a more headstrong imperial approach from the start.

-posted by Adam

One senior minister under fire would just be shrugged off as a normal, everyday occurrence. Two senior cabinet ministers under fire is unusual. But three? That’s taking the pee.

Yet this is what happened yesterday. Of course, Labour’s “Black Wednesday” hardly compares with the ERM collapses of 1992. But this comes the week before the local elections, at a time when Labour were already at their lowest poll rating since I was born.

 Although Jonathan Freedland makes an interesting point, John Prescott ought to be the minister in least danger. It’s certainly a pretty disgraceful thing that he has done, and all sympathies should lie with his wife. Unless Prescott has done something Blunkett-esque and broken the ministerial code (as Freedland speculated) then I see on reason why he should resign. I think the Times leader gets it spot on with this comment:
 

This is not a resignation issue, but it will hardly be Pauline Prescott alone who thinks far less of her husband as a man and as a public figure after learning of the full details of this story. The Deputy Prime Minister is becoming a liability to this administration. The ugly aroma of the arrogance of power is rapidly attaching itself to him.

Perhaps the last sentence is a bit too wordy (sounds like something Thomas Carlyle would have written) but you get the point.
 UPDATE – just seen this on Iain Dale’s blog. He is a Tory, so think twice before believing him. Just remember you heard it here first…
 Charles Clarke is a different matter. Yes, these criminals had served their time, and paid their debt to society. Letting them wander free onto Britain’s streets without even considering them for deportation, and not even knowing where they are – now that’s scary. 288 criminals were released without being deported even after Charles Clarke knew there was a problem! In more civilised political times, Clarke would have done the decent thing and resigned.

Finally, although some Labour bloggers are bristling at the ingratitude of the nurses who booed and jeered Patricia Hewitt, you can see their point, can’t you chaps? If you are going to make daft remarks like this, with the NHS in the financial state it’s in, what do you expect? Labour is spending more than ever on the NHS, and getting improvements. That doesn’t mean the Health Secretary should get delirious, sack 7000 nurses, and then tell a conference of nurses that everything’s going to be OK.

I was surprised not by the heckling (you’ll always get one person heckling, even if it’s only some mad old bat with an asparagus complex) but by the scale of the heckling. It was uncomfortable and embarrassing to watch. Even I, as someone who would usually rather extract my own teeth with a rusty spanner than listen to Patricia Hewitt talking, had some sympathy for her on this occasion. I get the impression that she is a fighter and that she will carry on. Opposition from angry nurses wearing similar t-shirts is not a resignation matter.

Cameron was very impressive at PMQs. Blair was indeed on the ropes, and squirmed the best he could. Probably still wasn’t good enough. I will reserve judgement on the state of New Labour and his premiership until after the local elections next week. Perhaps the person who has emerged from the day with my opinion of them most damaged is Sir Menzies Campbell, yet this story most newspapers have only touched upon. What a muppet Campbell is! He has a golden opportunity to make some political capital, and somehow managed to score an own goal. Even Labour managed to get through the day without misleading the house…

Posted by Roy