Noam Chomsky on “New Atheism”

Chomsky answers a question about the new crop of writers advocating atheism and wars against “Islamofascism” in the name of secularism such as Christopher Hitchens.

Chomsky’s reply is first, followed by the original question to him.

Chomsky, of course, incorrectly lists Jeane Kirkpatrick as Reagan’s Secretary of State when in fact she only served as UN ambassador.

Chomsky’s reference to to the killing of tens of thousands of Africans refers to the effects of Clinton’s bombing of the Al Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Sudan in 1998 and Hitchens’s denunciation of Chomsky for comparing that bombing to 9–11.

Reply from Noam Chomsky:

I don’t think it’s worthwhile to review Hitchens. On “moral equivalence,” to my knowledge the concept was concocted, or at least popularized, by Jeane Kirkpatrick, as a way of slandering anyone who dared to raise some objections to the murderous terrorist wars that she was helping to implement as Reagan’s Secretary of State, and as an apologist for state terror and repression. It’s a term of vulgar propaganda, which should be dismissed with contempt. The same is true of the analogies of the kind you mention.

I haven’t been thrilled by the atheist movement. First, who is the audience? Is it religious extremists? Say right-wing evangelical Christians like George Bush (as you rightly point out)? Or is it very prominent Rabbis in Israel who call for visiting the judgment of Amalek on all Palestinians (total destruction, down to their animals)? Or is it the radical Islamic fundamentalists who have been Washington’s most valued allies in the Middle East for 75 years (note that Bush’s current trip to the Middle East celebrates two events: the 60th anniversary of the State of Israel, and the 75th anniversary of establishment of US-Saudi relations, each of which merits more comment)? If those are the intended audiences, the effort is plainly a waste of time. Is the audience atheists? Again a waste of time. Is it the grieving mother who consoles herself by thinking that she will see her dying child again in heaven? If so, only the most morally depraved will deliver solemn lectures to her about the falsity of her beliefs. Is it those who have religious affiliations and beliefs, but don’t have to be reminded of what they knew as teenagers about the genocidal character of the Bible, the fact that biblical accounts are not literal truths, or that religion has often been the banner under which hideous crimes were carried out (the Crusades, for example)? Plainly not. The message is old hat, and irrelevant, at least for those whose religious affiliations are a way of finding some sort of community and mutual support in an atomized society lacking social bonds. Who, in fact, is the audience?

Furthermore, if it is to be even minimally serious, the “new atheism” should focus its concerns on the virulent secular religions of state worship, so well exemplified by those who laud huge atrocities like the invasion of Iraq, or cannot comprehend why they might have some concern when their own state, with their support, carries out some of its minor peccadilloes, like killing probably tens of thousands of poor Africans by destroying their main source of pharmaceutical supplies on a whim — arguably more morally depraved than intentional killing, for reasons I’ve discussed elsewhere. In brief, to be minimally serious the “new atheism” should begin by looking in the mirror.

Without going on, I haven’t found it thrilling, though condemnation of dangerous beliefs and great crimes is always in order.

Original Question:

The New Atheism and Hitchens

I’m wondering what you think about this new atheist movement that has sprouted up in the last few years. Why do you think this is happening? Why is atheism being more tolerated in the mainstream now? Do you think this movement is having a net positive effect so far?

Personally, I have been thrilled by this development — but at the same time rather horrified by many of the people being given credit for it. Some part of what they are doing is no doubt helpful, but on the whole, far from causing this change in the zeitgeist, aren’t atheists like Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Pat Condell, Johann Hari, Ibn Warraq, Nick Cohen, and others, greatly harming the Atheist movement by advocating and acquiescing to policies that are clearly strengthening religion? For instance: they are for, often hawkishly, the War of Terror in Afghanistan or Iraq, or both, that are augmenting theism; they think that baiting and kicking all Muslims in the face by championing racist cartoons, which were a huge gift to Islamist demagogues, is the way we are going to win hearts and minds; they regurgitate a shrill and ignorant caricature of Islam that is not only ineffectual and counterproductive but is, let’s face it, being used as a dogwhistle to stir up jingoism and anti-Arab racism; etc.. etc.. Let me illustrate further with the case of Christopher Hitchens, the leading useful idiot of the Parties of God, whom even openly supports the most powerful fundamentalist reactionaries in the world. One of the main themes of his work now, as you know, is that Bush on the whole is right on national security — precisely the issue the GOP has used to win all these elections, as the Religious Right can’t get into power just through the Bible Belt. Hitchens is desperately attempting to channel this Atheist Awakening into support for snakehandling imperialists like Bush by framing his Rightist apologetics in antireligious rhetoric. He once wrote in his Slate column: “George Bush may subjectively be a Christian, but heand the U.S. armed forceshave objectively done more for secularism than the whole of the American agnostic community combined and doubled…” using Iraq and Afghanistan as examples. But how is Bush objectively secularist when he is steadfastly backing the Saudi Royal family, the worst theocratic dictatorship on the planet? And haven’t those wars had the effect of increasing jihadism and driving Mideasterners into the hands of mullahs and monotheists due to the social devastation, anomie, and chaos they’ve wrought? In my understanding, Operation Infinite Justice in Afghanistan has propped up fundamentalist warlords and tribalists like the United Islamic Front for the Salvation of Afghanistan (euphemistically called the “Northern Alliance”) and has enabled the Taliban to gain a new legitimacy in the eyes of Afghans by exploiting antioccupational sentiment. In Iraq, Bush’s other faith-based war, the US has unleashed religious sectarianism and is bankrolling Islamic death squads (and also corporate death squads like Blackwater that are run by radical Christianists such as Erik Prince, as Jeremy Scahill points out). In an interview with Peter Robinson, Hitchens bizarrely concedes this point in the context of criticizing Maliki: “Prime Minister Maliki is an unpolished thug who is the leader of a terrible clerical party called the Dawa Party… He is a sectarian thug… Religious sectarianism is the worst poison that can ever affect a society. We are helping to empower it at the center” but only “helping to defeat it at the periphery.” Do you agree with Hitchens that the US is empowering religious sectarianism at the center in Iraq? If so, do you think the “surge” is furthering this empowerment? How?

I don’t see how Bush is a secularist in any way, shape, or form — subjectively or objectively — but rather he seems a quite sincere dyed-in-the-wool Christian evangelizer who in words and in actions is on a mission to spread his faith. When Dubya is blocking stem-cell research, pushing for neocreationism in schools, shamelessly hawking Terri Schiavo, persecuting homosexuals, spreading lies about sex-ed, weakening women’s rights — and all of this on religious grounds — I guess this somehow must be more he is objectively doing for secularism, more than all of the agnostic community combined and doubled. Hitchens’ book on god is not great. For instance, in it he has only one passing mention of (that completely whitewashes) this outrageous “Faith-Based Initiatives” program that Bush has spearheaded, which is absolutely sickening religious vulturism in my opinion. Through this unmonitored slush fund (and USAID), Bush is giving the radical Christian Right billions of dollars to prey on the people most at risk to theocon brainwashing: alcoholics, drug addicts, the poor, the marginalized, and other types of people in emotionally vulnerable states — with nary a peep from Hitchens, despite all of his airs about Jefferson and the separation of church and state! Is there a more extreme violation of the Establishment Clause in the US today? Given his mantra of “Onward Christian Soldiers” and his high-profile de facto (and partly de jure) support of Bush and what that entails, it seems to me that Hitchens may subjectively be secular, but he is objectively doing more for fundamentalism than most Christians combined and doubled. Considering that a person is responsible for the predictable consequences of their own actions regardless of intent, would it be completely unfair to describe Hitchens as more or less a collaborator with, and an agent of, Abrahamism?

I’m going on way too long here, but let me ask you about one more thing while on the topic of Hitchens. I’ve looked everywhere, but for some reason, I just can’t find anyone on the Left, anyone serious at least, who claims, or even implies, that there is a “moral equivalence” between the Republicans and the Third Reich, or that Bush is on the same moral plane as Bin Laden, or (even despite all of the often inflammatory rhetoric) that Bush has been an outright fully-fledged fascist all these years. On the rare occasions when Hitchens actually quotes something to back up this baseless charge, it’s always followed by a fatuous and obvious non sequitur. And for some strange reason he doesn’t go into a paroxysm when people like Richard Dawkins compare Ted Haggard’s sermons to Nuremberg rallies. In fact, given the hypersensitive way that he is using the term, isn’t Hitchens hypocritically committing this ultimate crime of facile moral equivalence when he compares jihadism to fascism and prattles on about “fascism with an Islamic face”? The Bin Ladens and the Al-Zawahiris out there are pretty nasty, but are they even in the same league as a Hitler or a Hirohito? Isn’t there a significant moral distinction between a scattering of Islamist guerrillas and the worst mass murdering totalitarians in history who came dangerously close to world domination?

Adrian Burnett

Source: http://www.myspace.com/chomsky/blog/395413368
Retrieved from Web Archive: https://web.archive.org/web/20110727174315/http://www.myspace.com/chomsky/blog/395413368