Free Riders and Heresy Hunters
I am asked in what way atheists are free riders in Christian societies. In this way: They expect the benefits of such societies, general honesty in all dealings, self-restraint, sobriety and gentleness in public and private conduct, diligence in work, marital fidelity and parental responsibility, the tender care of the old (these are examples) to persist after the morality which prescribed them has been dismantled.
Practical atheism, as I term it, is common in those blasted regions of our cities where nobody is married, there are no fathers, the remaining shops have steel shutters, the schools are places of dread for anyone who values learning or order, the police only visit to flash their lights for a few minutes before departing (and anyone who calls them is a ‘grass’), the ground-floor windows have bars, and the vandalised phone-boxes are smeared with spittle and littered used needles.
It’s also common among many bankers and other businessmen, who get away with what they can; among young people who procure abortions because babies are inconvenient to them, and older people who dissolve marriages because they are inconvenient, who drink to excess, take drugs and allow their children to do so.
These habits of mind then spread into the trades and professions where selfishness can cost more than a little self-esteem – the banker who risks his depositor’s money, the police officer who lies in court, or who fails to act when a case like that of Fiona Pilkington comes before him, the lawyer who fails to protect his clients’ interests with sufficient diligence and attention, the surgeon (or the school bus driver, or the train driver, or the lorry driver) who has cannabis in his bloodstream while he operates, the journalist who prefers to hack a phone than to do the hard grind of proper reporting.
We begin to see this around us. The test is always what people do when they think nobody is looking. Civilisation doesn’t suddenly collapse, any more than our northern Sun suddenly sets. I suspect militant practical atheism is quite common in the aborting classes, the divorcing classes, the cohabiting classes, the banking classes and the drug-taking classes. Those who spread this idea aren’t as popular as they are in the bookshops for no reason at all.
They don’t mind doing these things. But as their comfortable world frays at the edges, and they find they can’t rely on the interior goodness and trustworthiness of others, they will (I suspect) angrily complain that things seem to have gone downhill a bit. They should realise that this is because they have helped push them downhill. If you don’t yourself accept that you must be guided in your actions by a just, unchanging authority which knows your secret heart, you can’t expect others to do this either. I am sure that one of the reasons for atheist coyness about their (undoubted) motives is an intelligent fear that their idea might catch on more widely. What if the servants turned atheist? Atheism’s only any fun when it’s the creed of a safe and smug minority, surrounded, served and protected by believers.
I don’t, by the way, recall Mr Wooderson asking me the question about the bereaved or tragedy-stricken that he says he put to me. Had he done so, I should have said that bereaved people are entitled to think what they like, as we all are, and it’s obvious that it’s always hard for those who have faced cruel loss to believe in a benevolent God. But I know of no examples of the modern aggressive, intolerant atheists who have come to their conclusions by this route. The militant intolerant atheists are a different thing altogether from the quiet despairing people who feel abandoned by goodness.
Our resident Heresy Hunter contributes ‘Mr Hitchens's position on homosexuality isn't as clear as he would have us believe. He says that homosexual acts between consenting adults should be permitted in private, although he also says that gay people who ask to be accepted as normal damage marriage,’
**Actually I have publicly and clearly abandoned anything remotely resembling this position (his summary of my opinions being, as so often, twisted out of shape) , having found that it got in the way of the real argument about marriage (http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/7714553/the-gay-marriage-trap/).
Heresy Hunter :’so presumably he wants gay people to hide who they really are.’
***Why does the Heresy Hunter presume this thing? He may be able to get away with this sort of twisted insinuation in the darkened, flickering cellars of his inquisitional trade, but not in the light of day. Can he explain his logic? I have never said, and do not think anything of the kind. I believe in freedom of speech, and leaving people to make their own moral decisions this side of crime. I don’t believe homosexual acts should be crimes. I do think, and have in the past said, that public declarations of homosexuality are incompatible with a conservative moral position, as is encouragement of divorce, advocacy of , or calls for legalisation of illegal drugtaking, advocacy of cohabitation and the deliberate encouragement of fatherless families. That obviously means that I don't think someone can say these things and claim to be a moral and social conservative. But I can’t stop anyone making them, and wouldn’t want to if I could.
The Heresy Hunter continues : ‘What I am trying to ascertain is a) exactly how announcing that you are gay stops straight couples from marrying and having children’
**Me, too. How does it? I haven’t said it does, and don’t think it does. All sexual acts outside lifelong marriage are in my view immoral and damage marriage in one way or another, but that’s an awful lot of acts, and the homosexual ones form a minor, nay, tiny part of them. Divorce, cohabitation and the deliberate subsidy of fatherless families are the issue.
Heresy Hunter again: ‘b) to what extent does Mr Hitchens think gay people should pretend that they don't exist’
***To no extent.
Heresy Hunter again: ‘and c) how far Mr Hitchens would like this idea to be reflected in the law’.
*** As I don’t espouse the idea, I have no desire to see it reflected in the law, by definition. Even if I did, it doesn’t seem to me to be a matter for the law.
The Heresy Hunter again: ‘ (which is why I am asking him about Russia, for they have just enacted a law that is similar - in principle at least, but obviously much worse in scale - to that of Section 28, which Mr Hitchens didn't believe to be a bad thing). ‘
**Well, if it’s not the same as Section 28, then it can’t be compared with it. If it *is* the same, I suppose I can’t consistently object to it in someone else’s country, though Section 28 is deader than the deadest doornail - and other people’s countries, as I keep saying, are none of my business anyway. I think the teaching of post-Christian sexual morality is not the proper business of state schools in a society founded on Christian morality.
The Heresy Hunter again: ‘Does Mr Hitchens believe that speaking about homosexuality as though it is normal in front of children or teenagers would reduce the amount of gay people? ‘
*** I shouldn’t have thought there could be such a crude cause and effect, as life is seldom so simple. But Matthew Parris, who knows far more about this than I do, has written interestingly on influence and homosexuality (the Times, 6th August 2006). I wish I could reproduce the whole thing but it’s behind a paywall) He concludes ‘Sexuality is a supple as well as subtle thing and can sometimes be influenced, even promoted ; I think that in some people some drives can be discouraged and others encouraged; I think some people can choose. I wish I were conscious of being able to. I would choose to be gay.’ Perhaps he should pester Mr Parris on the subject.
The Heresy Hunter continues ‘Would he like to see such a policy introduced in this country?’
**I have no interest in this subject any more. I also have no illusions that anything I say or do will influence any policy, so I might as well propose to alter the courses of the planets as urge the adoption of policies. At one time, I imagined that the 1967 Abse compromise was a line worth defending. I now think I was wasting my time with a futile, trivial diversion.
And the Heresy Hunter concludes: ‘And when is he going to answer my charge that he is worse than a bigot, because a bigot's disapproval of gay people is irrational, whereas he deliberately chose to believe that gay people are abnormal and immoral, and to treat them as such, when he chose to live in world with meaning?’
***The depth of misunderstanding here is so vast that I doubt I can bridge it, since it is wilful rather than rational. The Christian is commanded to love his fellow men and women, even tiresome, prejudiced Heresy Hunters. He condemns wrong *actions*, starting with his own, and seeks to ensure that society does not encourage wrong actions in others. The statement that such and such a type of person is ‘abnormal and immoral’ is not compatible with this view, as all fall short and all can also be forgiven. Also, I’m not sure where he has got the word ‘abnormal’. I should have thought anyone with much experience of life would know that ‘normality’ is a bit of an illusion. Nor is it always desirable. As for ‘treating them as such’, what on earth does he mean by this? What is this ‘treatment’ that he imagines? It’s tedious to ask, because I know I shall get a response, but am by no means sure of getting an answer. People such as this Heresy Hunter do not seek or welcome generous rational discussion, though they purport to be innocent inquirers. That said, if he surprises me with reason and generosity, I’ll reply. But if he acts according to his usual behaviour, I shall not.