GING 3

Because mullahs in Nigeria issue a fatwa against Polio vaccination, decreeing it to be a plot to sterilize muslims; because a bishop, perhaps inartfully tells his flock (accurately) that condoms are not a 100% safeguard against STDs; because one sect of Judaism has a bizarre, extra-Biblical (near as I can tell) twist to its circumcision practice; because in certain parts of the world muslims engage in the brutal practice of clitorectomy; because mormons once practiced bigamy; because of the criminal tolerance for pedophiles within the catholic church; and because many religions have in one form or another restrictions on sexual practices, Hitchens concludes the following:

1. Religion is manufactured.
2. "Ethics and morality are quite independent of faith, and cannot be derived from it."
3. Religion, "because it claims a special divine exemption for its practices and beliefs," is "not just amoral, but immoral."

Taken at face value, this first statement makes no logical sense. The conclusion does not follow the premise. Logically speaking, it is hypothetically possible that a religious people could be 100% wicked, and still have its facts straight about who God is and how he wants them to live their lives (thus not manufactured). Solomon lived wickedly and still knew how he should have lived according to God's commandments. So did Eli's sons. So did Balaam.

Regarding point 2, it is entirely true that one can be a moral creature without faith, and without having derived it from a particular creed. However, the moral code within an individual, that causes one to recognize right from wrong, did not come from said individual. Or that person's parents. Or grandparents. And so on. I have heard Hitchens try to argue that morality is entirely a construct of our capacity to reason. But this is subjective. A former theologian named Joseph Stalin reasoned that it was acceptable to inflict mass starvation on his nation in order to achieve a soviet utopia. I reason that Stalin was a butcher. Who's right? Reason is not how we construct morality. Rather, it is the mechanism by which we apprehend the morality that exists objectively, independent from us. Attempting to postulate morality in a meaningless, unintended universe is like trying to hammer a nail into thin air.

Regarding number 3... I reject outright the notion that I get special "divine exemptions" for my "practices and beliefs," if that's intended to mean that I as a Christian feel that I am entitled to certain hypocricies that the rest of the world isn't. Which is absolutely what is intended. However, if what was intended by that remark is that all religions think that their way is right--which they do (and which is not what was intended by that statement), it's somewhat understandable why an atheist like Hitchens would feel this way (of course it would be interesting to examine any ways he might "claim exemption" from morality for his own behavior as an atheist). But hypothetically speaking, if one "way" were in fact "THE way," ie, the way that the one true God has made himself known and that He Himself endorses--If the One who is the embodiment and the source of all morality says "do it this way," then necessarily, that is the right way, no? And therefore, not immoral.

Throughout this chapter, Hitchens takes several liberties with the truth. There's the "...the well-attested fact that numberless [animals] engage in homosexual play." As with so many other "facts" cited in this book, Hitchens feels no obligation to back his statements up with any sort of reference. Hopefully he's not citing Rosie O'Donnell. He also cites the appearance of homosexuality in societies throughout the world as evidence that it's part of humanity's design. Another example of the conclusion not following the premise. There are people with tourettes, blindness, and nipple rings all over the world. Are these evidence of our design? Lastly Hitchens concludes his chapter with the ad hominem that christians everywhere are gleefully awaiting the end of the world so that we can enjoy the tortured suffering of the heathen. Right, Chris. That's why we face ridicule, persecution, and in some cases imprisonment, torture, and death to bring the light of the Gospel to those who haven't heard or don't believe. That's what motivated Richard Wumbrand and his flock to defy the Soviets and to endure imprisonment and unspeakable cruelty for the sake of Christ: because secretly, they didn't want their soviet captors to receive Christ. Secretly, they wanted them all to go to hell. And that's why Wurmbrand founded Voice of the Martyrs, which assists the persecuted Church around the globe and partners with missionary organizations who are taking the gospel to the most dangerous places on earth. Really, it's all a vast conspiracy to get as many people damned as possible.