In a well written review of Mark Steyn's "America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It", Christopher Hitchens charges that:
Steyn cannot seem to make up his mind about the defense of secularism in this struggle. He regards Christianity as a bulwark of civilization and a possible insurance against Islamism. But he cannot resist pointing out that most of the Christian churches have collapsed into compromise: choosing to speak of Muslims as another “faith community,” agreeing with them on the need for confessional-based schooling, and reserving their real condemnation for American policies in the war against terrorism.
Update: Steyn responds, in brief, to some of Hitchens' criticisms of America Alone at his website:
Christopher Hitchens has a somewhat critical review of America Alone. I disagree with him strongly about a common "Euro-Muslim identity". I think there is one, and that it transcends differences between German Turks and French Algerians, and that there are already signs that it's more authentically pan-Continental than ersatz EU "Europeanness". However, his criticisms in this and other matters are worth pondering. See also Brigitte Pellerin in The Ottawa Citizen our collective menopause.
Leaving aside, for the moment, Hitchen's obvious ignorance of the significance of Steyn's reflection that "...Christian churches have collapsed into compromise...", I wish to emphasise Hitchen's underlying, yet unstated (at least here) creed. As discussed by Nick Gillespie at Reason, Hitchen's stated in an interview with Reason, that (in Gillespie's words):
With the collapse of socialism as a viable alternative social system...it only makes sense that conservatives and libertarians would start to line up on different sides of the barricades that surround the battleground of individual choice and autonomy.
Hitchens sees a battle going on in the West between "conservatives" and "libertarians": conservatives wanting to rob the soul of secularism and libertarians seeking to praise it. I don't agree with this premise. This is not my point here.The problem with secularism guarded by libertarianism is that it is self-immolating. Steyn shows incredible foresight of Hitchens' argument in his book (p. 98):
And yet even those who understand very clearly the nature of Islam are complacent about Europe's own structural defects. Olivier Roy, one of the most respected Islamic experts in France, nevertheless insists "secularism is the future". Almost by definition, secularism cannot be a future: it's a present-tense culture that over time disconnects a society from cross-generational purpose. Which is why there are no examples of sustained atheist civilisations. "Atheistic humanism" became inhumanism in the hands of the Fascists and Communists and, in its less malign form in today's European Union, a kind of dehumanism in which a present-tense cultures amuses itself to extinction. Post-Christian European culture is already post-cultural and, with its surging Muslim populations, will soon be Post-European.
In his rush to debase any semblance of the transcendent and not comprehending that Steyn's understanding of civilisational understanding of Christianity is quite detached from the plight of the Western church, Hitchen's arrives at his false conclusion: that Steyn is confused on the role of Christianity in defending the West. Ney, Steyn is not confused. It is Hitchens. Steyn's point is that the Judeo-Christian moral law on which Europe was built has been corrupted from the inside and is not eating away the the outer veneer. The afore quoted section of Steyn's book is title "The Potemkin Church". For those that don't understand this, check the link. Hitchen's may yet be able to reconcile Steyn's seemingly conflicting pronouncements.
I look forward to reading and or hearing Steyn's response to Hitchens' compliments and criticisms of his book.
Comments