You know, I disagree with Christopher Hitchens about God (he's an atheist after all), but I can't take away from the man his sheer brilliance when he focuses his disdain for organized religion in the direction of those who useit to justify intolerance and general unruliness, never mind cold-blooded murder.
His latest piece for Slate is a case in point. [Hat tip to Alois for the link]. In it, he explains "Rage Boy" to us. You've seen him, the seemingly professional Muslim effigy-burning, flag-trampling, open-mouthed-screaming lunatic who is always free on the day that someone, somewhere 'insults' his God. He's always got enough time on his hands to show up and pose for the cameras doesn't he?
But here's what Hitch has to say to the rest of us about him and how we should react to him:
We may have to put up with the Rage Boys of the world, but we ought not to do their work for them, and we must not cry before we have been hurt. In front of me is a copy of this week's Economist, which states that Rushdie's 1989 death warrant was "punishment for the book's unflattering depiction of the Prophet Muhammad." There is no direct depiction of the prophet in this work of fiction, and the reverie about his many wives occurs in the dream of a madman. Nobody in Ayatollah Khomeini's circle could possibly have read the book for him before he issued a fatwah, which made it dangerous to possess. Yet on that occasion, the bookstore chains of America pulled The Satanic Verses from their shelves, just as Borders shamefully pulled Free Inquiry (a magazine for which I write) after it reproduced the Danish cartoons. Rage Boy keenly looks forward to anger, while we worriedly anticipate trouble, and fret about etiquette, and prepare the next retreat. If taken to its logical conclusion, this would mean living at the pleasure of Rage Boy, and that I am not prepared to do.