Posted by:
steve benson
(
)
Date: March 28, 2015 09:10PM
You know, that gawd-awful, rude, arrogant atheist guy who then (and now) strikes fear and loathing in the hearts of the insecure flocks of the faithful.
I personally met Hitchens a few years ago at a national Freedom from Religion Foundation convention of assorted atheists, agnostics, freethinkers and non-believers in Madison, Wisconsin, where we shared the same dais as event presenters.
As usual, Hitchens was his refreshingly witty, reasoned, rational, acerbic, confrontational, direct, elegant, enraging, engaging, unapologetic self--who, not surprisingly, managed to upset even members of that particular crowd, some of whom apparently came there expecting a tent revival "wave" moment where everybody thought and spoke in unison.
Not.
What I genuinely admired about Hitchens is that he forced people to think outside their little comfort-zone boxes by taking off the gloves and taking on conventional ideas with eloquent and vituperous vigor. It's what I would call his "in-your-face grace."
Hitchens was, in fact, at his observable best when he had had a few (or several) drinks prior to audience engagement. (In this instance, he was reportedly seen at the downstairs hotel bar downing some adult refreshment prior to taking the stage). Now, I know that his penchant for alcohol probably wasn't all that good for his long-term health and had arguably contributed to his esophageal cancer (RIP) but it demonstrably lubricated his mind and emboldened his speech, so what can I say? At least he approached his condition seriously and seeking competent medical treatment. I hoped the best for him, with a big non-godspeed.
Anyway, back to the story. After his podium presentation, Hitchens, during Q & A from the floor, offered some defiant commentary which clearly rubbed certain folks in the audience the wrong way, leading to audible booing and grumping. A few even walked out. (Convention organizers later confided to me that they wished they hadn't opened up the floor to Q & A, fearing that Hitchens would be asked to offer his views on certain volatile topics that the organizers thought were beyond the scope and purpose of the convention. But, nonetheless, the event planners allowed the Q & A to proceed, resulting in a mini-hell breaking loose sparked by questioners who didn't like what they heard in response to their questions. But, hey, it was their own damn fault).
(FYI, the object of audience protest was Hitchens' answer to a question about how best to deal with issue of global radical Islam. He responded with his personal opinion that the only way to effectively cope with this particular brand of religious extremism was to militarily destroy it and seize its resources, adding that we could use the oil, anyway; otherwise, he argued, these religious fanatics would continue their jihadist quest to obliterate Western civilization and take over the planet at the expense of humanity. As I said, Hitchens' answer prompted some members of the audience to hurl cat-calls, and to boo and hiss him. One indignant audience member began loudly singing, "Onward Christian Soldiers." Others subsequently circulated a petition angrily demanding that FFRF convention organizers issue an apology for having invited Hitchens to speak and insisting that they promise never to invite him back. FFRF refused to bend to those demands).
Hitchens' response from the podium to the protesters was a memorable one. He stood there calmly, then shot back: "If you don't like it, take a number and pull my thumb." I about busted a gut, That defiant retort only made some grumps in the audience madder.
Geezus.
So much for my fellow intellectual cohorts-in- arms in the freethinking atheist world who boast about being open-minded enough to tolerate the expression of certain ideas with which they may strongly disagree--but who then experience a pouty-faced wicked witch meltdown when confronted with notions that lead them to petition for formal apologies and speaker bans. I mean, for gawd's sake, you don't have to share the same viewpoint as the speaker and may, in fact, vehemently disagree with what he has to say but demanding public retractions and attempting to implement moratoriums on future appearances? That sounds like something wacky fundamentalist Christians would do.
So, where was I? Oh, after Hitchens' speech wrapped up and he had left a feeling of palpable discontent hanging in the air, he nonetheless agreed to stick around to sign books. Since I had been sitting up front close to where he had spoken, I was the first in line to have him autograph his "God Is Not Great" (which, by the way, is a great book). He asked who I was and when I told him, he raised a knowing eyebrow, cracked a slight smile and politely complimented me on what I was doing without mentioning any specifics.
I, likewise, congratulated Hitchens on a job well done with the audience in getting them all hot-and-bothered by pummeling back at antagonistic questions that some had put to him in the first place. I remarked that it was good for people to experience challenges to their beliefs (since it might actually prompt them to start examining contrary points of view which could potentially hold more intellectual and evidentiary merit than the ones they were currently fiercely gripping). For the record, I didn't personally agree with Hitchens' views that got the undies of certain members of the audience in such a twist, but I wasn't about to demand that the mike be turned off, that the convention organizers issue a formal apology and that Hitchens never be asked to return.
Hitchens listened quietly, then pleasantly asked me what I would like him to say in his signing. With a smile, I suggested "To Steve, from Chris." Without comment, he signed "Christopher Hitchens."
That defiant s.o.b. :)
_____
related RfM thread:
http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1547622Edited 7 time(s). Last edit at 03/28/2015 10:59PM by steve benson.