Replies

I have great hopes for him. For with his wordsmithing abilities combined with the zeal of convert, Hitchens would make one of the most powerful proponents of freedom since Whitaker Chambers.

I agree. I actually respect the guy even though he sometimes annoys me with his atheistic views. At least in this article, he is hoping for moderation from a religion and not some leftist, humanistic dream that mankind has no need to nurture his spirituality.

The article still smacks a little of moral-relativity, especially when Hitchen's compares Christianity to present-day Islam. If Hitchens really studied the world's religions, he would see that most religions (especially modern Christianity) allow its members the freedom to choose and peacefully tolerate other sects so long as its adherents are given the same freedoms. A few religions (like Islam, IMHO) are dangerous to civilization and do not allow for choice, be it for or against a belief in a Higher Being.

I have trouble believing that Islam can be "reformed" without 80% of Mohammad's teachings being thrown out. (Read the end of the Koran, the entire Hadith and study Sharia. You will then understand how it is a near impossible feat to bring Islam kicking and screaming into a modern, civilized society.) The same can't be said of Christianity, Buddhism, Zoarastrism, etc...

I think there are some interesting, and possibly very relevant, parallels between the excesses of Christianity during the Middle Ages and Renaissance and current radical Islamism.

Both are reactions to tremendous social, economic, and technological change. Christianity's excesses led to the birth of (classic)liberal democracy, unprecedented economic freedom, and a rare high level of cultural tolerance. Though it took the rise of the nation-state and geography to bring it about.

Arab muslims have been subjected to several centuries worth of social, economic, and technological change within the space of a few generations. Clearly they are having great difficulty reconciling their antiquated tenets of faith with modernity. Perhaps it will require a "super-state" to "help" them through the transition?

One could get the distinct impression from current events that history is once again repeating itself.

The article still smacks a little of moral-relativity, especially when Hitchen's compares Christianity to present-day Islam. If Hitchens really studied the world's religions, he would see that most religions (especially modern Christianity) allow its members the freedom to choose and peacefully tolerate other sects so long as its adherents are given the same freedoms.

Reread the article, this time without skipping over parts of it. Hitchens was, quite accurately, comparing the state of Islam today with that of Christianity in the late-medieval and early-modern periods.