Notes from Hitchens
Hitchens on death-bed evangelism.
‘It’s considered acceptable in our culture to approach perfect strangers, as often or not who may be in extremis, and evangelise. I don’t see why that’s considered a normal thing.’ His voice rises in indignation. ‘They’re allowed to roam the wards. They tried it on me.’I know people old and young who’ve been terrified by attentions of this kind.’
He has been thinking of making a short speech along precisely these lines, to the effect that he, Harris and Dawkins may set up a secular equivalent of hospital visitors. ‘We’d go round – “Hope you don’t mind, you said you were Catholic? Only three weeks to live? Well, listen, you don’t have to live them as a mental slave, you know; you could have three weeks of freedom from fear of the priest. Don’t be a mug all your life…” I don’t think it would be considered in very good taste.’
I don’t think it would be a kindness either, I say.
‘I think it would,’ Hitchens says. ‘Absolutely.’
On whether he thinks he’s been a good person.
‘No, not particularly. Not as the world counts these things, because the world expects, for that definition to apply, a good deal of selflessness. And while no one scores very high on that, I score lower than most. I don’t do much living for others, I really don’t.’
On what being good actually is.
Thinking of his damning critique of Mother Teresa in his 1995 book The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice, I say, rather unkindly perhaps, that it would be unfortunate if he were to be remembered not as the person who had fed the poor and comforted the dying, but the person who had given a good kicking to the woman who did.
He looks at me. ‘I don’t think the contingency comes up. Those who do feed the poor and comfort the dying are safe from me. Mother Teresa did neither. She was a fraud.’
Quite so, and thus the question was not so much unkind as mindless. Hitchens didn’t give a good kicking to “the woman who did” – notice that “the” as if there were only one and that one were Ma T. How her reputation does persist, for no reason apart from sheer reputationicity.
On a related note, does anyone know how he’s doing? I mean, I know he’s dying of cancer, but he canceled an event back on March 8 due to his health and I haven’t heard from him since — no articles, talks, debates, nothing. I thought that was a bit unusual, because he’d been writing and speaking regularly up until that point.
Death-bed evangelism is a strange phenomenon. Everyone seems to accept it as perfectly ok because the person pushing it “means well”.
Even on the atheist forum that I habitually frequent, when I brought the subject up the consensus seemed to be that it was acceptable for a theist to do this, but the reverse – the utterly hypothetical atheist evangelism scenario – would be tasteless and malicious.
I don’t for one second advocate atheist evangelism, most especially not when someone is dying; but I find it intriguing that the double standard exists. Personally I don’t care how well-intentioned the theist is, false comfort is no comfort at all.
I guess that article implies his absence is just due his worsening physical condition. Really unfortunate.
Michael, the only other thing I know is that he was unable to file his usual Slate column this past week, so yes, he’s in bad shape right now. The note on the Slate space (probably written by him) said it was because of radiation treatment, so possibly it’s temporary. Or not.
Grania,
God, really?! That’s appalling!
It’s not even comfort, false or otherwise – it’s “you’re all wrong and bad and you need to be fixed quick now before you die.” I don’t consider it well-meaning.
I admire Hitchens, even though I don’t always agree with him. He is the perfect example of how to be a contrarian journalist, viciously critical while retaining that devilish sense of humour. I am glad he admits that he does not think he’s a good person, because any honest person really would say the same. We may all not live up to any ideal standards of goodness, but that is unimportant, what is important is that we’re not even mildly evil.
I disagree with the notion that goodness means selflessness. I think this is part of the error of his Marxist yearning. I think goodness is very much irrelevant, as most of us will help someone injured on the street, or act in some way when others are distressed. That doesn’t make someone good, because goodness is not part of a person’s character, it’s our default position. It’s a matter of how bad we are, or if we are actively evil. That’s what is important, and that is all that is deserving of criticism.
Ophelia, yea, that makes sense. I was just a bit worried because he said he was scheduling his treatments so that he could continue to write and speak, but he canceled the March event the evening before, which raised a flag.
Ophelia, I think that the general acquiescence with such behaviour has something to do with the fact that most of us are not particularly comfortable with dying or bereavement – the right thing to so and say is not always immediately obvious. So on the whole people give a free pass to anything that sounds as if it is meant to be encouraging.
Admittedly, only a small amount of critical thinking is required to realise that lying to dying people is not in fact nice behaviour.
Hopefully the Hitch keeps going a bit longer, and not in some poorly state. That’s just pure selfishness on my part. I love reading his work and catching him in action via the net. If he’s dead or so ill that he can’t function, I miss out on that.
I found this odd:
(Anyone looking in Hitchens’s subconscious for a key to his hostility to the Church might start here.)
It seems a bit gratuitous at any case, as if Hitch is angry at God because an ex-anglican cum eastern mystic is the reason Hitch thinks religion is bollocks. It’s not like religion makes sense or has evidence unequivocally butressing its claims, but no, it’s an emotional reaction on Hitch’s part.
How her reputation does persist, for no reason apart from sheer reputationicity.
Even among the non christians in India. When we grew up the only articles we read was about the selfless work she did, the poor she helped, how she lived among us Indians, and had sacrificed her life for the poor and needy. I don’t remember a single critical article. Nor do I ever remember reading her doing any evangelical stuff.
If nothing else she had great PR.
Grania Spingies
Yes I agree. I don’t really feel like contradicting someone when they tell a dying person that you will go to heaven and meet your loved ones but Id think arguing that there is no heaven with a person who is dying is in bad taste. I suppose it is the desire to see people die happy or in peace that makes us tolerate the lying. I don’t know if I really want to change this when say a family member says these thing (though a stranger proselytizing will hear a few things from me)
Oh well it’s not “you’re going to heaven” I’m arguing with, it’s attempts at conversion. That’s what Hitch is talking about there. Not murmuring consoling fictions but evangelism.
I am so tremendously grateful to the Youtubers who have uploaded Hitch’s CSPAN appearances from decades past. How delightful to watch him suffering through early morning appearances, patiently dealing with angry right-wing callers whilst sipping from his coffee mug of scotch to calm his hangover jitters.
I’m also grateful to the BBC for 1994’s Hell’s Angel, which I’m not entirely sure they would have the courage to air today.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WQ0i3nCx60
Most of all I appreciate Hitch for being a deliciously vulgar, unrepentant gnu, despite/because of his intellect, nuance, and empathy. This one’s for you, Hitch.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBa6YMs-AbY
Thanks for posting the links Anonymous. Hell’s Angel is an eye-opener. I knew the MT wasn’t much chop, but it never occurred to me that the reason she was so feted was because she allowed us to feel like we were doing something for those benighted, helpless darkies.
If I really thought everyone who doesn’t believe in Jesus will be tortured horribly forever in Hell after they die, you’d find me preaching at streetcorners and roaming the wards.
Sure. I was responding to why non believers go along with some parts of the charade while thinking a frank atheistic view would be considered in poor taste.
@Hertta
But if you truly truly believed in Jesus to buy the everyone who doesn’t believe in him goes to hell – wouldnt you be going about helping everyone in need instead of preaching at street corners?
@Deepak Shetty
No, helping people in need has nothing to do with it. Suffering in this life is nothing compared to being tortured with fire for an eternity. If I was smart, I’d write convincing books that would save millions but because I’m not I’d just go around hysterically from person to person begging them to believe me. I’d suck at evangelizing and probably end up in a mental hospital because I wouldn’t be able t handle the thought of all the people suffering in immense agony that would never stop.
Hertta,
But you’re writing now as yourself, an unbeliever. If you were a believer you might have a calm confidence that because god is in charge, every reward or punishment is deserved and that might offset the tendency to go mad with worry about people’s suffering. The worry, in a sense, could only come from a lack of confidence that god has everything under control, if you see what I mean.
This is totally misguided. If you visit someone dying, the focus should be on that person, not on you. So unless the dying person himself starts talking about heaven and meeting loved ones there, you bringing that subject up means you are making your thoughts the subject of the conversation instead of what may be troubling the dying person. That means you are trying to cope with the idea of death instead of trying to help the dying cope.
If you go and visit a dying person and don’t know how to comfort hem/her. Stop trying, trying to comfort the other are more often than not attempt to find comfort yourself than that they are comforting the dying person. The best you can probably do is lend a listening ear and acknowledges the dying person’s feelings and his/her right to have them! The more you say yourself, the more you make the visit about you instead of it being about the person you visit.
Stewart, yes, obviously most believers do not go mad with worry even when it’s part of their belief system that most people will be tortured after they die. I don’t know if a trust in God’s fairness can override normal human compassion and sense of justice. Perhaps. But I think they just haven’t internalized the idea. They simply don’t really believe what they say they do. I can’t believe all those people could be so severely deprived of empathy that they’d just shrug at the thought of people being tormented forever.
I don’t think hospital administrators should let the proselytizers roam the wards, whether they sincerely want to save the dying from a terrible fate, or just want to be able to tell their fellow believers or God that they’ve been harassing dying people all day again. I agree with Ayxxaan that it’s not the dying who should comfort others in their delusions about where they are going.
Sorry, Axxyaan.
I question the medical ethics of allowing deathbed proselytization. How is this not some form of harassment or bullying?