None of you probably bothered reading my recent comment on the psychology of “hits and misses,” but Hitchens’ admonishment of Faith reminds me of that phenomenon. I felt the same about George Carlin when he would give his reasons for abhorring religion. They cite atrocities committed in the “name” of religion, and tally those deaths, yet never, ever count the millions of small acts done each day in the name of religion; a nurse helping a sick child, a Priest comforting a family whose father has died, a mom cooking dinner for her family, a dad going to work even though he’s ill… Religion helps billions of us, each day, to meet the daily struggles of life and move the ball forward, progress, manage the difficulties of life and stay positive. How much laughter has religion also brought to the world? Joy? Passion? Sacrifice?

And, as we all know, most of the fools committing violent acts in the “name of religion” are not acting in any manner consistent with the Faith they attempt to hijack. I don’t think Christopher Hitchens hangs out with the same religious folk I do.

The Times Online published another excerpt from Christopher today in which he discusses his bisexual schoolboy exploits. When he mentions “Christian heartlanders” and the emotion they show denouncing sex, while being found in hotel rooms doing lord knows what, I couldn’t help but think of all the emotion he puts into his denouncing of religion and thought “hmmmm.”

The other passage was from Peter’s book, and it was about Christopher:

“It is striking that in his dismissal of a need for absolute theistic morality, Christopher says in his book that ‘the order to “love thy neighbour as thyself” is too extreme and too strenuous to be obeyed’. Humans, he says, are not so constituted as to care for others as much as themselves.”

Although I usually don’t agree with him, I’ve always admired the hell out of Christopher Hitchens, partly due to the sort of intellectual honesty I find in people like him and Camille Paglia, to name another (mostly) leftie I find worthwhile to read.

I’ve always felt that if I wanted somebody on my side in an argument, I’d be hard-pressed to find somebody better than Hitchens (and on the other side of the coin, he’s last guy I’d want to take on in a debate).

But for the life of me, I just could not understand his antipathy to Mother Theresa of Calcutta. Not just that he despised her, but that he found her a charlatan. It had always seemed to me that he could have dismissed her as a misguided fool, rather than trying to make a case that she was a phony.

But brother Peter’s quote makes it all clear – even if a fool – a fool for Christ – if she was sincere, Chrisotpher’s bedrock foundation for rejecting Christianity is smashed to bits.

For any person who believes in prayer, and additionally believes in the possibility of intervention by the Church Triumphant, and with an interest in Christopher Hitchins finding his way to God, a prayer through Mother Theresa would be hard to beat – not only would there be the rich (if glorious) irony in the whole thing if it did lead to success, but no matter what, you’d at least have the satisfaction of knowing that you really would have pissed off Hitch.

(and thanks, JFN – those were wonderful reads)

Commander Eric Ernest Hitchens of the Royal Navy was a man of relatively few words. I can remember perhaps three or four things of the rather laconic and diffident sort that he said to me. One was that my early socialist conviction was “founded on sand”. Another was that while one ought to beware of women with thin lips (this was the nearest we ever came to a male-on-male conversation), those with widely spaced eyes were to be sought out and appreciated: excellent advice both times and no doubt dearly bought.