Hitchens and Kim Jong-il prove: "Screw 'em If They Can't Take a Joke!"

"And whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted."
- Matthew 23:12

"Be a clown, be a clown,
All the world loves a clown
Be a poor silly ass
And you'll always travel first-class"
- From "Be A Clown", lyrics by Cole Porter

The year 2011 ended with two notable celebrity deaths:

1. British-American journalist and gadfly Christopher Hitchens died of pneumonia on December 15; and
2. Kim Jong-il, the man who held the title of North Korean Supreme Leader (along with many other titles) died of a heart attack on December 17.

To put the lives of these men in perspective, I correct a theory of Hitchens, and apply this corrected theory to the late "Beloved Leader" of North Korea. Hitchens placed the blame for much of the world's evils on religion, but a closer examination reveals that the blame more accurately belongs to the ancient vice of vanity.

For centuries, religious leaders have attacked atheism as promoting unethical behavior. These leaders argued that without the reward of Heaven or the threat of Hell, what incentive is there for an atheist to behave morally? Hitchens, along with many atheists authors, have correctly pointed out that this argument is erroneous and unfair. There are many good reasons for practicing morality besides the afterlife, and there are many atheists who lead ethical lives. Hitchens is right on this point, but then he advanced his own variant on this attack. As he said in a debate with Mark Roberts:

"There’s a great deal of wickedness that’s attributable purely to religious belief. Morally normal people wouldn’t do these things if they didn’t think God was desiring them to do so."

So instead of arguing that ethics require a belief in God, Hitchens argues that one should not believe in order to live an ethical life. Hitchens' position has many of the same mistakes as the anti-atheist position he attacked. There are plenty of rationalizations for bad behavior besides the "God made me do it" excuse. Moreover, some of the greatest moral outrages of the twentieth century (the Soviet Gulags, the Cultural Revolution, the East German Stasi) were carried out by Marxists who opposed religion.

Hitchens frequently encountered the issue of Marxist immorality in debates, and he had a novel response to this issue. He argued that the Soviet, Maoist, and North Korean regimes, in spite of their official atheist positions, were really religions! Christopher posits that the founding members of these failed states are viewed as gods or prophets, and hence these Marxist atrocities are yet more examples of holy terror. Now granted, some communist states have rituals that are reminiscent of cult religions, such as the Soviet's extraordinary efforts to preserve Lenin's body. But the square peg of communism simply does not fit into the round hole of religion, at least as how Hitchens and Marx defined it. Consider Engals' eulogy for Marx, taught in all the major communist countries: "On the 14th of March, at a quarter to three in the afternoon, the greatest living thinker ceased to think." Such a statement makes it clear that Engals did not believe that Marx had an afterlife. Now if the communists are going to accept anyone as god, they would certainly regard Karl Marx as divine. And if they were to do so, they must conclude that their god is dead!

Christopher Hitchens is not here to defend his theory that religion is the root of most of the world's atrocities, but we can do the next best thing by fixing this theory's flaws. The real common factor to the most repressive states is a belief that their leadership is incapable of error, and therefore should be exempt for criticism. Now if your state's leadership is claiming to be God's exclusive agent on planet Earth, fostering this belief is that much easier. But as the cults of Fidel Castro and Kim Jung-il demonstrate, one can obtain such blind devotion without religion.

What these repressive regimes really lack is humility, that is, a good-natured admission that they have faults, just like the rest of us. In other words, they lack a sense of humor. Consider Kim Jung-il. He has read many a somber, scholarly criticisms of his rule. As an avid film buff, he has seen dramas and action pictures with North Korean villains. But there is only one Western work that so offended Kim Jung-il that he had North Korean embassies request that the work be banned: the film "Team America: World Police", the marionette picture made by the creators of "South Park". He realized that other critiques would do him no lasting harm, but that anyone who laughs at the Kim Jung-il puppet is unlikely to accept the real Kim as an infallible ruler. For similar reasons, Adolph Hitler was distressed by the Chaplin film "The Great Dictator". One wonders what Hitler would have thought of the many YouTube "Downfall" videos.

For this reason, we should be grateful for the current trend where our politicians appear on comedy shows, such as Jay Leno. There are now several shows ("The Daily Show", "Red Eye") that combine politics and humor. Political humor does more than provide us with some much needed laughs; it helps us keep our leaders in perspective, and by doing so, it protects our freedom.

Taking The Pledge

FREE counter and Web statistics from sitetracker.com

"I pledge allegiance to my flag and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
- Francis Bellamy, "Pledge of Allegiance" (original version)

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republicans for Richard Stands, one nation invisible, with liberty and just us for all."
- The "Pledge of Allegiance" as many school children remember it

Massachusetts state law requires that teachers lead their class in the "Pledge of Allegiance" every day. The courts have ruled that a teacher or a student's right to choose not to recite the pledge is protected by the first amendment of the constitution, so the law has fallen into disuse. Every few years, some sort of drive pops up to bring back the recitation of the pledge in schools.
Now an Arlington teenager is spearheading such a drive.

Most of the challenges to the pledge have been on religious grounds. The words "under God" were added to the pledge in the 1950's, raising establishment clause issues. In courts, defenders of the pledge have argued that these words do not favor any particular religion, since followers of any faith can interpret the phrase "under God" to be the god of their faith. This argument ignores the rights of atheists and agnostics, as well as those religions that are not centered around the worship of one deity. What would the phrase "under God" mean to a Buddhist, a Confucian, or a Taoist? And for a Hindi, which god does the pledge refer to?

Advocates of reviving the school-led pledge assure us that no student or teacher will be forced to take the pledge. But the history of the commonwealth of Massachusetts suggests otherwise. In 1984, Randolf high school senior Susan Shapiro, an orthodox Jew, objected to the pledge. She believed that pledging to an inanimate object (the flag) would be a form of idolatry. Her home room teacher berated Susan for her beliefs in front of the class. Later she found herself bullied by her fellow students, and her family started receiving anonymous threatening, and often anti-Semitic, phone calls. Eventually Susan received police protection. These were the consequences of a student declining to take a pledge that was promoted as "voluntary".

Although most critiques of school-led pledging center around religion, the strongest critique of this proposal, ironically, comes from the pledge of allegiance itself. The pledge concisely but eloquently expresses why our country deserves our allegiance in its final six words: "with liberty and justice for all". Our children should learn how valuable liberty is, how rare the freedoms we enjoy today are in human history, and why this nation's founders fought so hard for it. But what would witnessing fellow students being pressured to recite a pledge against their will teach a child about liberty?

All too often, these mass rote recitations of the pledge result in children mouthing the words without really understanding them - witness the generations of kids who thought the pledge had something to do with "Richard Stands". At its worst, this ritual can deprive a student of his or her freedom, ironically in the name of a pledge about liberty. Let me suggest an alternative: why don't we have our grade school and high school curriculum include one week where the students learn about liberty? Our schools should have an annual "Freedom Week" where the students will be taught how liberty played a vital role in virtual every subject they are studying, including history, science, music and literature. There are dissidents who have come to this country to escape repression who would make excellent "Freedom Week" lecturers. If we could really impress our children with the importance of freedom, they would gladly and voluntarily pledge to this country.

The Rise of the Non-Religious Right

"And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."
- James Madison, in a letter to Edward Livingston

"That's me in the corner
That's me in the spotlight, I'm
Losing my religion
Trying to keep up with you
And I don't know if I can do it
Oh no, I've said too much
I haven't said enough"
- From "Losing My Religion" by R.E.M.

One advantage of being a libertarian is that it allows one to view the more dominant political movements (i.e. liberalism and conservatism) without bias, and hence detect trends that mainstream analysts often miss. One such trend is the right's recent acceptance of the non-believers in their ranks. Just a few years ago, the religious right had a dominant role in the conservative movement. They were George W. Bush favorite constituency. It is significant that this president that was (in)famous for his restrained use of the veto pen first used it on an issue pushed almost exclusively by the religious right. But the following events suggest how quickly things have changed in just a few years.

• When Ayn Rand first gained prominence in the 1940's and 50's, the right widely criticized her for her militant atheism. But this year, the revival of interest in Rand's work has gotten quite favorable coverage from the right wing media. Her atheism is noted briefly in passing, if at all.
  
• John Derbyshire, editor of the National Review Online, mentions in his new book "We Are Doomed: Reclaiming Conservative Pessimism" that, due to his doubts, he has not attended a church in years. The right wing web sites I've seen that have reviewed the book have not made a big fuss about Derbyshire's decision to leave his church; in fact, few sites even mention it.
• A recent poll of young republicans show that the right's next generation has very little interest in the religious right's agenda. It appears that this might be the last generation where same-sex marriage will be a contentious issue.

The religious right has always been controversial, even in conservative circles. Remember Goldwater's famous quote, "Every good Christian ought to kick Falwell right in the ass"? One would expect the religious right to lose some clout in recent years, due to their connection to the pariah George W. Bush. But even so, a change this dramatic is worth noting.