Re: One Man's Meat (Robert Wright & Christopher Hitchens)
While I am quite sympathetic to Hitchens' argument, I find here as in other debates that he's quite uncharitable in his interpretations of the points made by opponent. He seems quite willing to misconstrue the context of Wright's arguments.
Please correct me if I'm wrong but throughout both diavlogs Christopher seemed completely unwilling to grant the premise that the very institution that he has argued "poisons everything" would be more likely to call for reprisals against a group that they deem an enemy of their faith. This seems to be undercutting his own arguments. By not granting that premise he seems to be contradicting his own assertion that religions in some places have been brought under a greater degree of secular control than others. He did grant that he'd be less comfortable seeing a group of men coming out of a prayer meeting in Beirut, Belfast, and Baghdad than he would in, say, Berkley. Shouldn't it then follow that in a place where religion is not constricted by secularism it has a greater capacity to call for violent reprisals against those it deems the enemy?
Again, please point out any errors I've made here.