When People Go Ballistic.

It’s just kind of pathetic that Christopher Hitchens occasionally feels the need to falsify things. This always happens when he writes anything remotely touching on religion. On other subjects, he is perfectly rational. But religion strikes some sort of lashing out mechanism. Last time around, he was claiming the Vatican had a “secret document” that threatened excommunication against anyone who reported child abuse.

How very childish.

If you can’t make your case without making things up, go home and sit in the corner. You’re just wasting everyone’s time.

Today, we enter the false world of Hitchens-Religio land again, this time kicked off by Mel Gibson’s troubles. The piece is entitled:

Mel Gibson Isn’t Just an Angry Narcissist.

His tirades are the distilled violence, cruelty, and bigotry of right-wing Catholic ideology.

Oh, Please. A drunken actor punches his girlfriend, and it’s the Catholic church’s fault. That’s a bit of a stretch.

Hitchens says:

Every time Mel Gibson unburdens himself of a tirade against Jews or “n______s” or uncooperative females, there are commentators on hand to create a mystery where none exists. When he produced The Passion of the Christ, which lovingly and in detail recycled the bloody myth that all Jews are historically and collectively responsible for the murder of Jesus…

Ah, but no fair viewer of the movie thinks the movie said that. If the movie had been about anti-semitism, no one would have gone to see such a piece of trash. But it wasn’t. Clearly. Only those who wanted to really stick it to Gibson for various reasons, among them his adherence to Catholicism, pretended that the movie was all about anti-Semitism. It didn’t matter to them that Gibson belonged to a distinctly flaky splinter group, a group that had separated themselves from Catholicism.

I think the world has figured out that Gibson is an awful human being when he is drinking. When drinking, he is out of his mind, a pathetic creature at best. Apparently, all of his recent troubles happened under the influence. When drinking, he is near insane. But there are also testimonies – by Whoopie Goldberg for one – as to his entire lack of racism etc. – when he is sober. It seems he has a reasonably even keel when he is not drinking, and becomes a monster when he is.

Does the drink lets him say what he really thinks? No, it sounds more like it allows a half-formed character out, a character that revels in making others feel bad. And so he thinks of, and says, the vilest things to make the other person feel bad. It’s not that he  believes what he is saying; the only criteria is whether he can hurt the other person. If so, he says it, and it doesn’t matter what Gibson personally thinks about it. He just wants to hurt someone at all costs.

But please. Hitchens jumps from the rantings of a self-important drunk to some connection to Catholicism, which Hitchens equates with fascism. Please. Get real. You just pointed out that he was a member of a splinter group, not the Catholic church. If we apply Hitchens’ same rationale to Hitchens, Trotskyists are then culpable for the crimes of  Stalin and all the other communists. So Gibson has to answer for punching a girl in the mouth in a drunken rage; Hitchens has to answer for the torturous deaths of at least 100 million people at the hands of the Communists.

No wonder Hitchens has to pretend the Catholic church is the greatest evil ever to befall man. It’s a defense mechanism.

In fact, the tendency of Hitchens to go ballistic and irrational at the very mention of religion (and begin stretching the truth) reminds me of someone else that goes ballistic from time to time.

Comments are closed.