Practice English Speaking&Listening with: Christopher Hitchens | Talks at Google

Difficulty: 0

>> Hi, everyone. Welcome to todays Authors at Google event. After the talk, were going

to have a Q and A session, and Id like to remind everyone to please use the microphone

in the middle of the room, if you have questions. Its my pleasure to introduce Christopher

Hitchens. Mr. Hitchens was born in England, and educated at Oxford. In 1981, he migrated

to the US, and recently, became a US citizen. Hes the author of a number of notable books

includingWhy Orwell MattersandLetters to a Young Contrarian.” As one of our most

notable public intellectuals, he has been a columnist atVanity Fair”, “The Atlantic,”

The Nation,” “SlateandFree Inquiry,” and taught at the New School,

UC Berkeley, and the University of Pittsburgh. In his new book, “God Is Not Great,” he

lines up the case against religion which he spent a lifetime developing with anger, humor

and a formidable style of argument that defines all of Mr. Hitchenss work. About the book,

Michael Kinsley wrote in the New York Times, “Hitchens has outfoxed the Hitchens watchers

by writing a serious and deeply-thought book, totally consistent with his beliefs of the

lifetime. And God should be flattered; unlike most of those clamoring for his attention,

Hitchens treats him like an adult. Ever contrarian, and always eloquent, hes here today to

discuss the book, take your questions, and take on anyone who dares to challenge him

to a debate. Hell be signing books afterwards. And, with that, please join me in welcoming

Christopher Hitchens to Google. >> HITCHENS: Thank you, darling. Sweet. Well,

thank you so much for that suspiciously grudging introduction. And thank you very much, ladies

and gentlemen, for coming. I understand weve only got the balance of an hour together so,

Ill try and break the rule of a lifetime and be terse. I think Ill put it like this.

Its true that publishers sometimes want to put a catchy or suggestive or challenging

title, subtitle on a book. And so, when we hit upon or they hit upon, well, how religion

poisons and why religion poisons everything, I knew what would happen, people would come

up to me, they'd say, you mean absolutely everything, you mean the whole thing? Theyd

take me literally. I thought, well, all right. One of the things you have to do in life as

an author is live up to your damn subtitle. So, today, Id defend the subtitle because

I think the title probably, when it came to me in the shower, I realized, it pretty much

does speak for itself. Unlike that sign outside Little Rock airport, huge--we had a black

sign that you see from the airport that says, just "Jesus," a word I have used myself, and

a name I know but putting it like that seems to say both too much and too little, you know

what I mean? Well, heres how religion has this effect, in my opinion: It is derived

from the childhood of our species, from the bawling, fearful period of infancy. It comes

from the time when we did not know that we lived on an orb. We thought we lived on a

disc. And we did not know that we went around the sun or that the sky was not a dome, when

we didnt know that there was a germ theory to explain disease, and innumerable theories

for the explanation of things like famine. It comes from a time when we had no good answers,

but because we are pattern-seeking animals, a good thing about us, and because we will

prefer even a conspiracy theory or junk theory to no theory at all, a bad thing about us.

This is and was our first attempt of philosophy, just as in some ways, it was our first attempt

at science, and it was all founded on and remains founded on a complete misapprehension

about the origins, first of the universe, and, second, about human nature. We now know

a great deal about the origins of the universe, and a great deal about our own nature. I just

had my DNA sequenced by National Geographic. You should all by the way get this done. Its

incredibly important to find out how racism and creationism would be abolished by this

extraordinary scientific breakthrough, how you can find out your kinship with all your

fellow creatures originating in Africa; but also, your kinship with other forms of life

including not just animal but plant, and you get an idea of how you are part of nature,

and how thats wonderful enough. And we know from Stephen Hawking and from any others,

Steven Weinberg and many other great physicists, an enormous amount now about what Professor

Weinberg's brilliant book calls The First Three Minutes, the concept of the Big Bang.

And we can be assured as we could probably need be that neither this enormous explosion

that set the universe in motion, which is still moving away from us in a great rate

nor this amazingly complex billion dollar--billion year period of evolution--we can be pretty

certain it was not designed so that you and I could be meeting in this room. We are not

the objects of either of these plans. These plans dont know were here. Im sorry

to say, wouldnt know or care if we stopped being here. We have to face this alone with

the equipment, intellectual and moral, that weve been given, or that we've acquired

or that is innate to us. And heres another way in which religion poisons matters. It

begins by saying, well, why don't we lie to ourselves instead, why dont we pretend

that were not going to die, or that an exception to be made at least in our own case

if we make the right propitiations or the right moves. Why do we not pretend that the

things like modern diseases which we can sequence now, sequence the genes of, like AIDS, are

the punishment for wickedness and fornication? Why don't we keep fooling ourselves that there

is a divine superintendent of all this because it would abolish the feeling of loneliness

and possibly even irrelevance that we might otherwise--in other words, why dont we

surrender to wish thinking? That poisons everything, in my opinion. Right away, it attacks the

very basic integrity that we need to conduct the scrupulous inquiries, investigations,

experiments, interrogations of evidence that we need to survive, and to prosper and to

grow. And it's no coincidence, no accident that almost every scientific advance has been

made in the teeth of religious opposition of one form or another that says we shouldnt

be tampering with Gods design. I suppose the most recent and most dangerous one of

these is the attempt to limit stem cell research. But everyone could probably think of all other

forms of scientific research and inquiry, especially medical that had led to religious

persecution, in reprisal. Thirdly, its an attack, I think, on whats also very

important to us, our innate morality. If theres one point that I get made more than another

to me when I go and debate religious people, it's this: They say, where would your morals

come from if there was no God? Its actually--its a question thats posed in Dostoyevsky's

wonderful novel, The Brothers Karamazov, one of the brothers says--Snelyakov, actually,

the wicked one, says it. If God is dead, isnt everything permitted, isnt everything permissible?

Where would our ethics be if there was no superintending duty? This, again, seems to

me a very profound insult to us in our very deepest nature and character. It is not the

case, I submit to you, that we do not set about butchering and raping and thieving from

each other right now only because were afraid of a divine punishment or because were

looking for a divine reward. It's an extraordinarily base and insulting thing to say to people.

On my mothers side, some of my ancestry is Jewish. I dont happen to believe the

story of Moses and Egypt or the exile or the wandering and the Sinai. And in fact, now

even Israeli archaeology has shown that there isnt a word of truth to that story or really

any of the others; but take it to be true. Am I expected to believe my mothers ancestors

got all the way to Mount Sinai, quite a trek, under the impression until they got there

that rape, murder, perjury, and theft were okay, only to be told when they got to the

foot of Mount Sinai, bad news, none of these things are kosher at all. Theyre all forbidden.

I dont think so. I think, I think we can--actually, I have a better explanation ever since--superior

as well as better--that no one would have been able to get as far as Mount Sinai or

any other mountain or in any other direction unless they had known that human solidarity

demands that we look upon each other as brothers and sisters, and that we forbid activities

such as murder, rape, perjury, and theft. This is innate in us. If those activities

are not innate, the sociopaths who don't understand the needs of anyone but themselves and the

psychopaths who positively take pleasure in breaking these rules, well, all we can say

is, according to one theory, they are also made in the image of God which makes the image

of God question rather problematic, does it not or that they can be explained by a further

and better research and have to be restrained and disciplined meanwhile, but in no sense

here is religion a help where it came to help most which is to our morality, to our ethics.

Finally, I would say--not finally because Im finished here, Im not quite done.

Don't relax. Everyone has got to drink, something to eat, but on the poison question, I think

theres the real temptation of something very poisonous to human society and human

relations which is the fear of freedom, the wish to be slaves, the wish to be told what

to do. Now, just as we all like to think and we live under written documents and proclamations

that encourage us to think that it is our birth right and our most precious need to

be free, to be liberated, to be untrammeled. So we also knew that unfortunately the innate

in people is the servile, is the wish to be told what to do, is the adoration for strong

and brutal and cruel leaders, that this other baser element of the human makeup has to be

accounted for and it gives us a great deal of trouble around the world as we speak. Religion,

in my view, is a reification, a distillation of this wish to be a serf, to be a slave.

Ask yourself if you really wish it was true that there was a celestial dictatorship that

watched over you from the moment you were born, actually the moment you were conceived,

all through life, night and day, knew your thoughts, waking and sleeping, could in fact

convict you of thought crime, the absolute--the absolute definition of a dictatorship, can

convict you for what you think or what you privately want, what youre talking about

to yourself, that admonishes you like this under permanent surveillance, control and

supervision and doesnt even let go of you when youre dead because thats when the

real fun begins. Now, my question is this--my question is this, who wishes that that were

true? Who wants to live the life of a serf in a celestial North Korea? Ive been to

North Korea. Im one of the very few writers who has. Im indeed the only writer whos

been to all three axis of evil countries, Iran, Iraq and North Korea. And I can tell

you North Korea is the most religious state Ive ever been to. I used to wonder when

I was a kid, what would it be like praising God and thanking him all day and all night?

Well, now I know because North Korea is a completely worshipful state. It's set up only

to do that, for adoration and its only one short of a trinity. They have a father

and the son, as you know, the Dear Leader and the Great Leader. The father is still

the president of the country. Hes been dead for 15 years, but Kim Jong-il, the little

one, is only the head of the party and the Army. His father is still the president, head

of the state. So you have in North Korea what you might call a necrocracy or what I also--I

called them mausolocracy, thanatocracy. One--just one short of a trinity; father, son, maybe

no holy ghost, but they do say that when the birth of the younger one took place, the birds

of Korea sang in Korean to mark the occasion. This Ive checked. It did not happen. Take

my word for it. It didn't occur and I suppose I should add they dont threaten to follow

you after you're dead. You can leave North Korea. You can get out of their hell and their

paradise by dying. To the Christian and Muslim one, you cannot. This is the wish to be a

slave. And in my point of view, its poisonous of human relations. Now, Ive really babbled

for nearly twenty minutes. Ill be quick. It is argued, well, some religious people

have done great things and have been motivated to do so by their faith; the most cited case

in point I have found is that of Dr. Martin Luther King, who I know I dont need to

explain to you about. Two quick things on that: First, he was its true a minister.

He did preach the Book of Exodus, the exile of an enslaved and oppressed people as his

metaphor. But if he really meant it, he would have said that the oppressed people, as the

Book of Exodus finds them doing, were entitled to kill anyone who stood on their way and

take their land and their property, enslave their women or kill their children, and commit

genocide, rape, ethnic cleansing and forcible theft of land. Thats what Exodus described

as happening--the full destruction of the tribes. It's very fortunate that Dr. King

only the meant the Bible at the most to be used as a metaphor and after all he was using

the only book that he could be sure his audience has ever already read. Thats the first

thing. The second is, during his lifetime, he was attacked all the time for having too

many secular and leftist non-believing friends, the people like famous black secularists like

Bayard Rustin, A. Philip Randolph. These are the men that did organize the march on Washington;

which leads me to my third observation which is this: Its a challenge I made now in

debates with rabbis, with priests of all Christian stripes, with imams. Once--I know this sounds

like an opening of a joke about some bar, but once also with a Buddhist nun in Miami.

I asked them all. Here is my--here is my challenge. You have to name me an ethical statement that

was made or a moral action that was performed by a religious person in the name of faith

that could not have been made as an action or uttered as a statement by non--a person

not of faith, a person of no faith. You have to do that. Not so far and Ive dealt at

quite a high level with the religious, no takers. No one has been able to find me that.

That being the case, we're entitled to say, I think, that religious faith serve as the

requirements whereas if I was to ask anyone in this room, think of a wicked thing said

or an evil thing done by a person of faith in the name of faith, no one would have a

second of hesitation in thinking of one, would they? It's interesting to realize how true

that is and how much true it's getting. Does anyone ever listen to Dennis Pragers Show?

Hes a slightly loopy Christian broadcaster, religious broadcaster, I should say. Hes

more Jewish than Christian--Judaic-Christian broadcaster who quite often rather generously

has me on the show. And he asked me a question the other day; he had a challenge of his own.

He said, “You are to imagine that youre in a town late at night where you have never

been before, and you have no friends and its getting dark. And through the darkness, you

see coming towards you a group of men, lets say ten. Do you feel better or worse if you

know that theyre just coming from a prayer meeting?” This is Mr. Pragers question

to me. I said, “Well, Mr. Prager, without leaving you, from just without quitting the

letter B, I can tell you Ive had that experience in Belfast, in Beirut, in Baghdad, in Bombay,

in Bosnia, and in Bethlehem. And if you see anyone coming from a religious gathering,

in any of those places, you know exactly how fast you need to run. And no one has to explain

to you why and I havent had to waste any time telling you, have I, ladies and gentlemen?

So I submit to you that it is those who are people of faith who have the explaining to

do, who have the justifying to do if this is indeed the case. If they can't account

for anything about the origin of our cosmos or our species, if they say that without them,

wed be without morals and make us seem as if we are merely animals without faith,

if further, everybody can name an instance where religion has made people actually behave

worse to one another and act as a retardant upon the advances of knowledge and science

and information, I submit that the case to be made is theirs rather than mine. We have

a better tradition. Were not just arid secularists and materialists, we on the atheist

side. We can point, through the Hubble telescope, the fantastic, awe-inspiring majestic pictures

that are being taken now of the outer limits of our universe, and whos going to turn

away from those pictures and start gaping again at the burning bush? We have smaller

microscopes that can examine for us the miracles of the interior of the double helix and the

sheer beauty of that. The natural world is wonderful enough, more wonderful than anything

conjured by the fools who believe in astrology or the supernatural. And we have a better

tradition politically against the popes and the imams and the witch doctors and the divine

right of kings and the whole long tradition of civic repression combined with religion

that's known as theocracy. We have created in the United States, the only country in

the history of the world, written on founding documents testable, organized, works in progress

based on the theory of human liberation and the only constitution in the history of world

that says that there shall be a separation between the church and the state. God is never

mentioned in the United States Constitution except in order to limit religion and keep

it out of politics and put it under legal control. This achievement was described by

President Jefferson whose biographer, I am in a small way, to the Baptists of Danbury,

Connecticut in a letter after they reasoned him for fear of persecution. By the way, who

do you think Baptists of Danbury, Connecticut were afraid of being persecuted by? Anyone

knows? MALE: The Methodists?

HITCHENS: No, the Congregationalists of Danbury, Connecticut. People forget what it used to

be like, see how the Christians loved each other, how they tried to repeat the European

passion of one religious sect repressing and torturing another one. And as you probably

know, the president wrote back and saud, “No, you may be assured that there will ever be

in this country a wall of separation between the church and the state.” So I have a new

slogan and Im taking it on tour and I invite you to join me in it and it goes like this,

Mr. Jefferson, build up that wall.” Okay, thank you very much for coming.

And Im all yours. And that was 25 minutes; I hope thats fair. And Ill point out

the questions if you like because I don't think anyone thinks that Ive planted my

immediate family in this hole, but, Carol, stay out of it. Bring it on.

>> Thank you for coming to Google.

>> HITCHENS: Its my honor. >> So you make it sound really, really simple.

I mean you have explanations for everything. >> HITCHENS: Yeah.

>> And I agree with a lot of your arguments and, you know, I lived in, like, a socialist

country. I mean, I come from Croatia so I, you know, I empathize with a little bit of

when you say like the axis of evil and especially North Korea being a perfect theocracy, I can

relate to that. But I don't understand why do you say that these people really want to

be enslaved, if you could explain this to me. I mean, I think theres really a system,

you know, like set up by a minority which is really a brutal system and I don't understand

about the part, like, you know, like this is something that these people want so...

>> HITCHENS: Did you say you were Croatian? >> Yes, yes.

>> HITCHENS: Yeah. Well, then you--then I would be upset if you thought I meant that

these man-made regimes were there because people wanted them to be, no. Thats not

what I meant at all about North Korea. Particularly, these have been riveted onto...

>> Yes. >> HITCHENS: ...people. I mean, North Korea

is a hermetic place unfortunately in that it has ocean on either side of it; the Demilitarized

Zone which is several miles wide on the south and Russia and China on the north. So, you

have a place where you can horribly conduct an experiment on human beings, essentially.

You can isolate them totally. The North Korean State was set up in the same year that Orwell

published 1984. And you almost think that somebody gave Kim Il-sung a copy of 1984 in

Korean and said, “Do you think we could make this fly?” And he said, “Well, I

cant be sure. We sure can give it the old college try.” Because thats how it feels

there. I went there, I thought, I've had his experience--Ill just digress for a second.

Ive had this experience twice in my life. Journalists hate cliché. I know it doesnt

always seem like that when you read the papers, but we try and avoid them. I went to Prague

once under the old days of the communist regime. I thought whatever happens to me here, Im

not going to mention Franz Kafka in my essay. Im going to be the first journalist not

to do it. I went to a meeting of the opposition underground, somebody betrayed us because

the secret police came in and, suddenly, wham like just broke down the door, dogs, torches,

rubber truncheons. They slammed me against the wall, youre under arrest. Well, I demand

to see the British ambassador. Blah, blah, youre under arrest. Whats the charge?

We don't have to tell you that. I thought, fuck, Ive got to mention Kafka after all.

They make you do it. Well, I--thats actually what a cliché is. Thats--communism is

a cliché in itself. The same in North Korea; I thought I dont want to mention Orwell;

I don't want to mention Orwell; have not have to mention. Theres no--theres no other

stand of comparison. No, what I meant about the fear of freedom was this: Many, many people

don't of course want to live under a hellish starvation regime of gulag type, like that.

But they, they quite like being told what to do. They don't want to be told that life

doesnt--the world doesnt owe them a living and that theyre on their own and

they--they quite like it and repeatedly vote for parties and, sometimes, leaders who promise

to provide everything as long as they'll give up just a little bit of freedom, just a little

bit. In the tradeoff, youll get more security and more welfare. Its a temptation. In

some cases, it takes an extreme form, and I'm very impressed by how often when I debate

with the religious people, they will tell me that theyve--they gravitate towards

faith because they want someone to, if you like, to look after them. The whole idea of

a heavenly father, for example, is built up on this. The--the old joke says some say God

is dead, some say God is dad, you figure. Then there are people who--well, Islam for

example, the word means, the word Islam means surrender, prostration. You give everything

to God. Everything is in his hands. This is implicit in the Qur'an. Thats what I mean.

But I think whats innate in most people is the feeling that they quite like someone

to take care of them all of the time so it can be hard to argue with them that there

is no such person. >> I understand better now but...

>> HITCHENS: Okay. >> You see, I--just to follow up a little

bit. So is there a possibility there to say that then some people are more freedom-loving

than others and is this some sort of, you know, like--I wouldnt call it racism but,

you know, like, differentiating people by their love towards freedom and all that?

>> HITCHENS: No, Im certain that the same feelings are innate in all people. And one

day, there will be a North Korean edition of 1984, and it will be a huge bestseller

there. >> Uh-huh.

>> HITCHENS: I am as sure of that as I can be of anything. Though, at the moment, its

hard to imagine theres anyone in North Korea who's even allowed to consider the concept

of political liberty. It will come because it is innate. I have no doubt about that.

>> To follow up to on this fear of freedom and this is an innate idea, sorry to beat

that horse, but what do you--what do you think would possibly replace this? I also think

that there are some--I mean its obviously much easier to say my life is out of my control

and these events are out of my control so, you know, Im going to thank God for the

good things and, you know, hate the devil for the bad things, whatever. So, like, you

know, from Plato to Nietsche to Socrates--or Descartes have said its difficult to choose

the life where you're actually deciding and making choices for yourself and taking responsibility

and appreciating the fact that the world doesnt care about your existence and then doing what

you need to do with that, and it is difficult. How do we, you know, well--how could we possibly

imagine a world where everybody buys into that idea and how do we--where would we go

like, where would that structure that some people feel they cant do without, where

would they get that from? I guess what would--what would religion be replaced by so to fulfill

this natural need? >> HITCHENS: Yeah. Well, I would say that

emancipating ourselves from religion and from the combined sort of solipsism and masochism,

this is what I was trying to say to the comrade here a moment ago. Religion says to you, remember,

the monotheistic ones, you're a miserable sinner, your sin is original, you can't escape

it, youre born as a wretch, youre made out of dust or according to the Qur'an, a

clot of blood, youre a worm, youre nothing, you know, but a piece of gunk basically. But--and

you got to work really hard to get away from the terrible punishment that awaits you for

that. So total abnegation, but theres also good news. The universe is designed with you

in mind, and God has a plan for you personally. So just when the person thinks they can't

take anymore abuse--its like being inducted into a cult. Just where the person thinks

they can't take anymore humiliation, they're told, oh, but father loves you and he wants

you to join our group. Thats not good for people. Youd be better off without it.

So would everyone you know, so its not a matter of what we would put in its place,

we wouldnt. Wed be emancipated from that kind of sadomasochism. Thats a good

thing to start off with. Second, we have the wonders and beauty of science to study. We

have instead of ancient texts that are full of lies and myths, we have increasingly a

wonderful world literature thats available to anybody who can read even a little--most

recently, I would cite you, because yesterday was the birthday of India, happy birthday

by the way to all Indians here. And Pakistanis, though if you insist, I think the partition

was a huge mistake. Theres a--and religious partition is the worst kind, and its going

to lead one day to a thermonuclear war so--I didnt have time to go into that but maybe

someone will ask me. There's incredible literature in English written by Indians. Its sort

of a sub-branch--but I shouldnt even say sub; I mean a branch--a new branch of English

writing by Indians in English. It's becoming a great part of world literature. Theres

all this extraordinary excitement. And people say no, no, no, you should--as Thomas Aquinas

said, a man of one book, you know, you should be reading a bible, you don't really need

anything else, theyre destroying libraries in the Muslim world that could have any books

that contradict the Qur'an, this is no way to live. But having said all that, and said

what the--and the consolations of philosophy too which arent that hard to study are

very rewarding. And ethical and moral dilemmas that you get out of the study of literature,

George Eliot, Dostoyevsky, people of that kind, James Joyce. Still, its only a necessary

condition, not a sufficient one. There are no guarantees and an atheist can be a nihilist,

or a sadist, or a Stalinist, or a fascist, itd be unlikely the last one but thats

possible. Okay. But we--there are no guarantees and in part that its the recognition of

that, thats the beginning of wisdom as well as I think the beginning of liberty.

>> One short and one longer one, I just want to be sure, I assume that you have read the

"Captain Stormfield's Journey To Heaven" by Mark Twain.

>> HITCHENS: Sorry. Yes, I've read a lot of Mr. Clemens on religion.

>> Yes. That seemed a sort of a definitive work on the hierarchy structure of a more

standard religion. >> HITCHENS: Yes. By the way, you can't read

too much Twain, ladies and gentlemen, on the subject. But now all of his stuff is available.

There are websites on Mark Twain and religion. It used to be really hard to get his writings

on religion even 10 years ago. Sorry. >> And my longer question which hopefully

won't choke you up. Actually, I have several friends who are very well-educated, in some

cases in the sciences, who became religious late in life. They have been atheist or agnostic,

and then just decided they were feeling something and became religious. Do you have anything

to say on that sort of grounds or why that might be occurring?

>> HITCHENS: Yes. I suppose I could speculate, but thats all I would be doing.

>> Of course. >> HITCHENS: I think for some people, the

Hubble View, say, does have the opposite effect from the one it has on me. It makes people

feel, well, then, whoever designed this must be even more amazing than I thought. And thats--there

are attempts made by creationists now to say that. Instead of saying, "No, Darwin was wrong.

God made all this stuff." They now say, "Well, okay, there was evolution, but God did that,

too." So as you may know arguments that explain everything, explain nothing. Thats a definite

principle I think of underlying full cognition. If they can bend their argument so it can

comprehend everything, comprise everything then it isn't an argument. But I think that

we are certainly made in such a way to be worshipfully inclined, shall we say. That

tendency is certainly within us. And when people think that there's something awe inspiring,

what they feel is awe. And then what they feel is well, maybe there's some majesty I

should be acknowledging here, though that isn't at all a logical step. By the way, do

you know about "awe?" >> In what sense?

>> HITCHENS: John Wayne played the Roman centurion in one of the films about the crucifixion?

>> I dont... >> HITCHENS: And there's a certain point the

rain has to come down hard, and there's thunder and lightning and the veil of the temple splits

and so on. And John Wayne standing as a centurion is supposed to say, "Truly, this was the son

of God." So he does this. I forget who the director was--I think its Houston. And

cue rain, thunder and lightning, so Wayne stands there stoically, and utters, "Truly,

this was the son of God." And the director's, "John, that was great. That was terrific.

I just wonder if we could have it with a little more awe." So they cued again the rain, thunder,

the veil of the temple splits into Wayne, earthquakes, you know. It's all happening

and Wayne says, "Aw, truly, this was the son of God."

>> So this is a kind of a follow-up on Tom's question. I have a buddy who styles himself

as a kind of an allegorical pagan. And he's had a lot of angry criticisms of religion,

many of which echo yours. But at the same time he feels in himself a kind of a biological

need to be part of a circle of believers in a community which he feels helps his rather

fragile emotional demeanor. He goes through, you know, depression and things like that,

and he finds that belief. So what he'd done is try to find what he feels as the least

obnoxious religion he could find and then not take it too seriously. What would you

say to such a person? >> HITCHENS: Well, that used to be called

the Church of England--or, the Unitarians, about whom Bertrand Russell said, "The great

thing about them is they believe in one god maximum." Peter DeVries is very good on this.

He says people used to be a pagan and polytheist and believe in multiple gods, and then they

started believing in one god and they're going nearer the true figure all the time. This

is progress. >> On an article, I believe it was that I

read, you seemed reluctant to endorse if not critical of Richard Dawkins's attempt to sort

of organize the atheists under the title of Brights.

>> HITCHENS: Yes. >> And I believe that your comment was that

we infidels need no such machinery of reinforcement. My question is, if like-minded people do not

organize, especially if those whose ideals we oppose are more organized, how can we attempt

to--kind of steer our society the way that we would like it to go?

>> HITCHENS: Well, I was to have said this to the previous question. I mean, Im in

some ways the wrong person to ask these questions. Im no longer a joiner up of groups. I dont

feel the belonging need anymore. I used to when I was younger and more left than I am

now feel that the need to be involved in an organized way. Now I dont, and I think

I probably have more influence as an individual than I ever did as a cogwheel in a so-called

party. A point for anyone to ponder actually who was asked have they ever considered registering

independent, for example. People may fight harder for your vote if you dont give it

away in advance. Separate question, and its very important to me that I dont belong

to a church. People who believe as I believe dont need to get together all the time

and remind ourselves what we believe, reinforce it, ram it home in case we forget the incredible

propositions that, you know, we're singing and all those kind of things. You just recognize

a fellow free-thinker when you meet one. That should be enough. And in any country or any

language as well. There will be in Washington in October the big gathering where Richard

Dawkins and Daniel Dennett and Sam Harris, [INDISTINCT] and myself and many others are

going to be--Victor Stinger. Because there has been an extraordinary vogue of successful

books on this subject now, and I think there's a change in the Zeitgeist going on about religion.

And let me just say this, if that Zeitgeist has been brought about, the change has been

brought about in that Zeitgeist, it hasnt been by any organization. It's by a group

of like-minded people writing their hearts out and refusing to be intimidated by religious

bullying. Or, to allow religious nonsense to be taught in the schools, for example,

in place of science. Or to allow euphemisms to be spread about the behavior of the parties

of god in Iraq or elsewhere. Thats what created it, not an organization but what you

might call an intellectual tendency. I think thats fine. I think it's encouraging.

>> Hi. A few of the things that you said dont really seem consistent with our experience

in the United States. Two things in particular: one is that you said, you know, once people,

you know, have Hubble telescopes and microscopes, the burning bush is not as interesting. And

the other thing you said is that, you know, religion kind of fits into, you know, innate

human nature for, you know, being told what to do or not having as much freedom. Well,

in the United States, we have the most advanced, wealthy, most powerful nation in probably

the history of the world, and you have probably the most freedom-loving, you know, almost

inventive--not inventing but really espousing the philosophy of freedom and individuality

and trying to, you know, propagate that throughout the world. Yet, you also have the most religious

nation. Well, it's true. I mean, you can argue with the methods but I mean, there's no question

that like we are trying to promote democracy. And yet you have, yeah, the most religious

nation. You have like people going to church is probably an all-time high. Religious people

affect who are leaders are, you know, to a great degree. So how do you explain like that

contradiction? >> HITCHENS: Well, I dont think its

a contradiction because religious, the section of the constitution means you can have religious

pluralism. Now for example where I come from, originally, you can tell I was born in England.

The head of the church is the head of the state and the head of the armed forces. It's

an official church and you have to pay for it and whether you want to or not. And on

the moment that her majesty, the Queen, expires, the head of the Church of England will become

a bat-eared half-Muslim with no taste in, for women as far as I can see, the lugubrious

Prince Charles, who goes to classes on Islam and talks to plants and is a loon. Thats

what you get for founding a church on the family values of Henry VIII. In the United

States, you can't have any of that. That would be unconstitutional. You can belong to any

church you want, the government has nothing to do with that. And people I think take a

Toquevillian view, if you like, of the church. They go, many of them, to church for social

reasons. Some of them for ethnic ones, some of them for charitable, some of them for community

reasons as you might say. If you ask someone now--I've been doing this a lot recently.

I have debated at every stop of my book tour. Okay, so said you are a Baptist minister,

yes. Well, do you believe in John Calvin's teaching on predestination and hell fire?

Why do you want to know? Well, because you said you were a Baptist. Yeah, but I mean

Im a Southern Baptist, you know that kind. Well, come one. They dont love the question.

They--or ask the Catholics if they really believe what their church teaches or what

the Pope tells them. Of course they dont for the most part. The fastest growing group

of people in the country has been measured as being those of who have no belief or who

are atheists. By far the fastest growing, its doubled in the last ten years. People

are evidently lying to the opinion polls, that there are not enough churches in the

country; there are plenty of them. Theyre not enough to take all the people who say

that they go to them, just couldnt be done, couldnt fit them in. I dont think that

people who have doubts about religion are going to tell them to opinion pollsters who

call them up at dinner time. They will say, yes, I am a Methodist or whatever it is, theyre

not going say I sometimes wonder if John Wesley was really the man. Not when the multiple

choice boxes are being gone through. So, but unfortunately, I mean, there are people who

think that thats the way to go politically. The president for example thinks that to say

someone is person of faith is axiomatically to confer a compliment on them. And if you

remember, he did it to Vladimir Putin, KGB goon and hood, and increasingly evidently

a very dangerous man to have in charge in Russia. President meets and says right away,

Right away, well, I could tell by looking into his eyes and seeing he was wearing his

grandmothers crucifix, that he was just the chap for me.” Now, in a strong field,

I think thats the stupidest thing the president has yet said. And he must, I think, occasionally

regret it. And I got, tried to get a research to this one to find out just, I just need

to know something, has Vladimir Putin ever worn his grandmothers crucifix since? Had

he ever been seen wearing it before? Or did he just think this should be enough for the

president of the United States? Because if so, it would show that religion was not just

metaphysically incorrect, but as I have I believe said, a danger and a poison to all

of us. If our republic can beand its president can be pushed over, like that, like someone

offering garlic to a vampire, then we really are in trouble.

>> Just a follow-up, though, it just sounds like you would have almost no religion in

the U.S. if youif its true that you were saying, that once you became an advanced

scientific society, you know, youd lose interest in religion which is not the case.

>> HITCHENS: All right. Id say a bit more, I mean, take the case of the so-calledintelligent

design schoolthey want at least equal time, they used to want to ban evolution,

now they want equal time in schools. So, they brought with their Discovery Institute friends

from Washington, moves on school boards and courts in Oklahoma, Kansas, Texas and the

most conservative County of Pennsylvania around the town of Dover. And they have been humiliated

in each case. And this is in Kansas, in Texas, in Oklahoma and in the most reactionary part

of Pennsylvania. Thrown off the school board by the electorate and thrown out of court

as flat out unconstitutional by the judges, in all cases, Reagan Republican appointees.

And I dont know what theyre going to do next, these rednecks, I dont know what

theyre going to do. But, I know why it doesnt work, and why its not going to

work, because there may be many parents in Kansas who say, “Well, I personally think

that God made the rocks and so on and only made them 6,000 years ago.” But they dont

want their children taught that in school. They dont want to come from a state where

they get laughed at when they say where theyre from. Oh youre from Kansas, thats the

place wherethey dont like that. Its the same, it was the same with the confederate

flag issue, quite apart from the racism. A lot of people who didnt want to come from

a state that had a confederate battle flag on its [INDISTINCT]. Among other things people

wont have their conventions in your state and youll suffer for that too. Youll

get laughed at when you travel, they dont want this. And nor should they have to put

up with it because of a handful of crackpots. So, no, I dont say there arent a lot

of devout people in this country and I dont say that science just negates religion. But

I say that the influence of religion as opposed to scientific rationalism is hugely overestimated,

yeah. Shouldntshouldnt impress people to the point where they feel it must - cant

be opposed. >> Thank you for coming. I think you already

answered one of my questions regarding organizing a larger effort. So separate from that I want

to get just some comments and thoughts based upon idea of if there is going to be an independent

movement whether at the Atheist or Anti-theist movement whether youre part of it or not,

if you have any suggestions for the average person not may not have say a publishing company

or a production company, but does have the Internet, you know, does have their own thoughts...

>> HITCHENS: Right. >> And keyboard in front of them, what they

can do to either give resources to other people or to actually express their thoughts in ways

that you find to actually be, you know, exceptional. >> HITCHENS: Yes.

>> Furter some sort of movement, if there may be one.

>. HITCHEN: Yeah, my friend, Rich Dawkins actually at the end of his book, The God Delusion,

does have a list which you can look up, and his is an excellent book, I should say, of

websites where so to say, help is available. Well, theres one for example, there is

a very important one of called, “Leaving Islam,” is about people want to get out

and are afraid or are being intimidated, ways of actually doing it and finding contact with

people who feel the same way. Very serious because there are quite a lot of our fellow

citizens now who dont feel that they do have religious freedom because they are imprisoned

in a religion that can kill them for even considering changing their minds about it,

this is no small matter. But I tell you what I would do, I would become a subscriber to

a magazine called Free Inquiry which is published out of Amherst, New York, its every month

I think, a very, very good rationalist and skeptical magazine which has itself a lot

of local activities that you can look up. And then, theres another magazine called

Skeptical Inquiry, published from nearer here, maybe more appeal to people of a scientific

or technical bent which does things likes they expose frauds that are on TV claiming

to be able to put you in touch with your relatives, or divine water or all these kinds of nutbags

that are often featured on primetime shows. And puts you also in touch with the work the

great magicians, Penn and Teller and James Randy, who again show that miracles are easy.

And they can also show the fraudulence of anyone who tries to exploit them, a world

of wonder awaits you. And these magazines will also show you and point out to the areas

where resistance is needed, say to the continued attempt to teach nonsense in American schools,

Yes, children that concludes the biology period, and now get ready for your creation

studies hour and after the astronomy class we will have the astrology class for equal

time, and then the chemistry alchemy period.” Its enough to make a cat laugh, isnt

it? There are people think this is what should be done to stultify American children. So,

you can meet up with other people could think that thats a bad idea.

>> Yeah, two things, an observation and a concern, my first observation is that I think

you share something in common with Jesus in that both of you have seems to be attacking

aspects of religion, but often in his case, he attacked specific religious leaders whereas

you attack religion itself. And, I was… >> HITCHENS: No, our resemblances are often

pointed out. >> Im sad to hear, I thought for sure Id

be the first. And secondly, the bit of concern, if we start going more and more toward Atheism,

you mentioned some of the horrible things that happened in the name of religion, but

I look at one of the greatest genocides or at least mass murders ever, was by the Soviet

Union under Lenin and Stalin when in the name of among another things Atheism, they killed

an enormously large number of their own people. And what do you think would prevent that from

happening if indeed you were successful? >> HITCHENS: I have a chapter on this in my

book because it is a very frequently asked question, I think its also a very serious

one, I have to condense the chapter if I may, but heres the situation. Until 1917, the

year of the Russian Revolution, millions of Russians, millions and millions of them had

for hundreds and hundreds of years been told that the head of the state, the Czar, was

also the head of the church and was a little more than human, he was the little father

of the people. He wasnt quite divine. He was more like a saint than human. And he owned

everything in the country and everything was due to him. Thats how a gigantic layer

Russian society was inculcated with servile, fatalistic ideas. If you are Josef Stalin,

you shouldnt be in the dictatorship business in the first place if you cant realize

this is a huge opportunity for you, youve inherited a population thats servile and

credulous and superstitious. Well, what does Stalin do? He sets up an inquisition. He has

heresy hunts, trials of heretics, the Moscow trials. He proclaims miracles, Lysenkos

agriculture that was supposed to produce three harvests a year or whatever it was, the pseudo-biology

that would feed everyone in a week. He says all thanks are due at all times to the leader

and you must praise him at all times for his goodness and kindness. And incidentally, he

always kept the Russian Orthodox Church on his side, it split. It split the church and

some of them moved to New York and set up a rival. But the Russian Orthodox Church remained

part of the regime, he was not so stupid as not to know he had to do that, just as Hitler

and Mussolini made an even more aggressive deal with the Roman Catholic Church and with

some of the Protestants. And remember the other great axis of evil person of that time,

the Emperor of Japan, was not just a religious person but actually a god. So Fascism, Communism

and Stalinism and Nazism are nothing like as secular as some people think, and much

more religious than most people know. But here's what a fair test would be: find a society

that's adopted the teachings of Spinoza, Voltaire, Galileo, Einstein, Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson

and gone down the pits as result of doing that into famine and war and dictatorship

and torture and repression. That would be a fair test. That's the test I'd like to--that's

the experiment I'd like to run. I dont think that's going to end up with a gulag.

>> Hi. Thank you for coming. >> HITCHENS: Thank you for having me.

>> More ladies asking questions would be awesome and please, I implore you to be really hilarious

so we can prove Mr. Hitchens is wrong about why women cannot be funny.

>> HITCHENS: I was wondering what you would--what you've done with your chicks here I must say.

>> We are a technology company. So, I'm not religious but just to play a little devil's

advocate, what do you say to studies that show that people who consistently go to church,

who pray, who believe in God have, like, lower blood pressure and live longer lives, et cetera?

>> HITCHENS: Well, Id say it wouldn't--wouldn't prove much. I mean, the--if it hard to prove--I'm

not sure I would be able to trust the methodology but suppose it was true, the same could be

said of being a Moonie for example. I mean, it's said--it is said that Louis Farrakhan's

racist crackpot Nation of Islam and its sectarian gang gets young men of drugs, for all I know

it does, it may but that doesnt recommend it to me. Nor does it prove a thing about

its theology, if you see what I mean. Whereas I can absolutely tell you that of the suicide

bombing population 100% are faith based. And I dont think that that in itself disproves

faith but I think it should make you skeptical of that kind of random sampling.

>> Sure. There seemed to be... >> HITCHENS: Of the genital mutilation community

the same can be said. >> I've a lot of progressive religious friends

who--I used to be pretty condescending towards religion but I feel like I've learned a lot

from them and learned about their religious practice and what it means to them and as

you stated earlier a lot of religious people dont really believe all the tenets of what

their faith says anyway. So, I feel like those friends of mine are looking for community

and looking for a feeling of oneness with other people and with the universe and ultimately

on a scientific level that bears out anyway because on like a quantum level everything

is one and is the same. So, I feel like churches at least in this country provide the sense

of community that I dont think exists any other way in our culture. I dont feel like

I had that growing up and I feel like my friends that went to churchm they can go back to their

church now and there are all of these adults that aside from their parents that were there

to nurture them as they were growing up and then ask how they're doing and I never had

that. So, I'm jealous of that in a sense. >> HITCHENS: It takes a lot to make me cry

but you...See me afterwards, I mean, the way it just--look actually its what I said

about if there's any who read, who read de Toqueville, in Democracy in America should--that's

what he said about--about communitarianism and religion. It's very--it's the reason why

America is so religious but it's a different form of religion. Ask yourself a related question,

it's amazing to me how many Americans change religion when they get married. You hear it

all the time, you've heard it. I used to be Seventh Day Adventist but my wife was Congregationalist,

now I go to the Congregationalists. It doesnt matter the Seventh Day Adventist used to say,

if you dont stay with us you're going straight to hell. Change very easily. Go to another

church instead. Wouldn't consider perhaps not going to one but it shows the--the depth

of the strength of religious allegiance. I also think that, well, it's notorious about,

say, Polish Catholics in Chicago or Greek Orthodox or many Jews, the church has been

a means of transmitting and preserving an ethnic tradition as well. The solidarity in

the face of often quiet bleak kinds of life, and now there's even a phenomenon known as

Churchianity. Its expressed by the megachurches, the people who live half transient lives dont

have very stable employment or residence who are often moving around the country. On a

Sunday they want to know where they can go take the old jalopy and be among friends,

and these characters are waiting for them believe you me to remove what few savings

they do have left from them. Because that's another indissoluble fact about American religion

just as community and blood pressure may be involved. It has to be mentioned in the same

breath as open fraud to an absolutely astonishing extent. I mean, the shake down community,

the genital mutilation community, the suicide bombing community, the child abuse I would

prefer to say child rape communities, all these are communities of faith, believe you

me. >> Oh, it's my turn?

>> HITCHENS: What's up? >> Try to diverge a little from the immediate

subjects. You expressed your regrets for this perverse impulse in the human spirit which

seems to desire to be dominated, to prostrate itself before the mysterious altar of power.

It occurs to me that the current government of this nation has in a calculated fashion,

exploited this perverse desire and exploited the language which seems to inspire it or

appeal to it. Now, I'm strongly opposed to a particular policy of this government which

is the indefinite detention of so-called terrorist suspects in Cuba and in particular I dislike

the way the government tries to justify this policy by using these very discourses of power

and secrecy which come of a particular religious stamp. So I would like to ask and--not to

be impertinent how you can square what you've said today with other comments you've made

apparently in support of this very policy. >> HITCHENS: There's no danger of you being

impertinent so dont worry about that. I've just returned from Guantanamo, when I say

just I was there last month. It took me a long time to get down and haven't yet written

anything about it so you won't know my views as I'm not sure that I know them in full myself,

but about your question, I know what my views are about indefinite detention in principle.

I didn't see or must have missed any allusion that all made to religion, in the decision

to declare them enemy combatants. You're suggesting there was a religious justification for the

detention policy? >> Not a religious justification per se but

in my opinion the Bush administration in its public deliveries often uses a language of

power very much akin to that used by religious tyrants and demagogues down the centuries

and this language comes up particularly strongly when justifying controversial actions such

as Guantanamo Bay. >> HITCHENS: Well, again I think we have a

disagreement, I mean the language they seem to use to me is the language of the secular

language of emergency powers and special circumstances requiring extraordinary measures and thats

a very old argument especially in the United States, it goes back to President Lincolns

attempt to suspend habeas corpus in the Civil War. It reminds me of that and not of any

argument about or with theocracy. >> Emergency powers and extraordinary rendition

and other times like this to me rather smack of secrecy jargon at the same time used by

preachers. >> HITCHENS: Or by secular despots. I just

dont think youre quite carrying your point about the theological. If by all means

if you want to discuss the question of civil liberties, lets do so, but its a departure

from the rubric. The Bush administration is not conducting a holy war in this respect.

It is confronting a holy war, however. One thing you cant miss about the inhabitants

of Guantanamo is how faith based they are, and thats part of the reason why we are

presented with this problem. The difference seems to me to be the following, if you treat

them as criminals, as some argue, then you cant say really that you are fighting a

war, then its only a law and order question. If you say youre fighting a war, then in

what sense are these not enemy soldiers? If they are enemy soldiers, how can you try them

as criminals? Why are you holding people as criminals and building a military tribunal,

I visited the room where theyre going to have them tried, where they will be able to

say, “Well, thanks for having me here and admitting that I am a soldier, when the whole

point is that the Geneva Convention says that theyre not. So thats bad enough to begin

with and its a territory no government has yet had to step onto. But in addition,

were apparently not allowed to do any of those things, nor are we allowed extraordinary

rendition nor can we have return them to their countries of origin in case they get maltreated

there by their own governments. Well, this leaves theapparently only two alternatives.

One is not to take any prisoners. And the other is to let everybody go and say weve

got no right to hold you. And neither of these seems to be very attractive. This is as far

as Ive got now with my reasoning. >> But do you not dislike the way thats

all of these actions might not be unconstitutional. Theyre not justified in constitutional

terms but in language such as extraordinary rendition, emergency powers.

>> HITCHENS: Yeah, I do dislike that very much, yes. I mean, no ones ever been able

to point out to me that Lincolns suspension of habeas corpus helped to defeat the confederacy

for example. And I certainly dont think that the president has the right under the

constitution to suspend habeas corpus. Only the Congress can do that. It doesnt mean

it cant be suspended. The Congress has to do it, the president cannot. I'm rather

a stickler for that kind of thing. Call me old fashioned if you will.

>> Well, I feel Ive taken up a little too much time now.

>> HITCHENS: A very welcome question, believe me.

>> I would posit that the Bush administration has restrained itself or needs to be restrained

from using genuine religious language in the way its approached that so called war and

terror and I believe the word crusade was used earlier in the campaign by President

Bush, its not been used since. And we remember that the original name of the campaign was

infinite justice. Another rejected piece of unfortunate language, obviously picked out

by some careful PR person. >> HITCHENS: [INDISTINCT]

>> Hi. Thank you very much for coming. I was just having a question about something that

many people have probably find to be a less serious issue but I'm curious about your thoughts

on art, music and creativity and how those fit in with your other ideas, those were three

things that formed communities that maybe we argued on faith, you know. The greatest

composers throughout history always dedicating their work to God and things of that nature

and I'm just curious how you view these things and beauty of these things to be similar to

the beauty that you suggested you can find in nature or how you think that they might

be more suited, more fitting in with religion. I'm just curious if you think that any would

be devalued in this new system or anywith your ideas.

>> HITCHENS: Yeah, we dont know, of the extraordinary buildings, the great Gothic

Cathedrals for example or the, even the Great Mosques of Andalusia. We dont know if the

architects who built them that they were themselves convinced that it was for the greater glory

of God. We just know that at the time you couldn't get a job as an architect if you

didn't affirm that. And certainly we know what would have happened to you if you said,

What God?” That would not just be the end of your career as an architect, so we

dont know that about... We dont know the same about, even the devotional painters,

we dont know if they were believers, or the composers. Of the devotional poets, and

I'm on stronger ground here as a literary critic, I know a bit more about it. People

like John Donne or George Herbert, it would be very, very hard to fake writing that if

you werent a believer. It would be extremely hard, where would you get your inspiration

from? And my feeling is that its real devotional poetry and I personally couldn't be without

it. Wed be much poorer. To stay with the literature if you dont mind. The King James

version of the bible, the King James translation, referred to in the New York Times recently

as the St. James translation, is itself a great work of literature and one couldn't

be without it, if you dont understand the beauty of that liturgy, theres a lot of

Shakespeare and of Milton and Blake you wouldnt get, you wouldnt know what was going on.

So its part of literacy to know it. I once wrote a book about the Parthenon, very important

building for western civilization, great deal to be learned from it and from, by its beauty

and by its symmetry and by its extraordinary architecture and sculpture. But I no longer

care about the culture of Pallas Athena and I dont care about the mystical ceremonies,

some of them involving animal sacrifice and possibly human, that were conducted on the

road from Eleusis. And I dont have to care about Athenian imperialism and what it did

to the Greek colonies in the rest of the Mediterranean. I can just appreciate the building and someand

know about the philosophical context and the plays of Sophocles and all the other things

that were going on at the same time without any reference to their gods. So I propose

that what culture largely means to us now is how to deal with civilizational art and

great creativity in a post-supernatural era. In other words, how to keep all of that thats

of value without having to care about the culture of Pallas Athena for example or to

be forced to bear in mind that say, St. Peters in Rome, actually not I think that impressive

a building, was built by special set of indulgences, I mean thats how the money for it was raised.

We can consider that independently now. We can value this building without knowing that.

Though I always find its somewhat hard to forget.

>> Right. Okay. I was just curious, I mean I wanted to seek more towards how all these

things in art and music and creativity are often relayed between individuals as being

spiritual or something along that nature whether or not the actual topic.

>> HITCHENS: I wanted to say a bit more of this when I was speaking first. I think that

the human need for the transcendent, for the spiritual is undeniable but thats not the

supernatural. Its very important to understand. The feeling that people get out of landscape

and music, or landscape and music in combination. The feeling of war and love at the same time

has had extraordinary consequences for many people, or one or other on their own. These

are the things we cant do without but theres no reason to attribute them to the supernatural.

Youre not glimpsing anything but nature from that.

>> Thank you. Thank you. >> Hi. So it turns out if you follow the money

trail back for a lot of these things, this whole creationism, teaching creationism idea,

youll eventually find political organizations that are trying to energize a base, right,

these bases... >> HITCHENS: Yes.

>> What theyd like to do is to get these people to feel like theyre being attacked.

And in lot of the discussions we have in your presentation, theres a fine line between

attacking people versus attacking ideas, right? What do you do to kind of ensure that youre

not going after people and not making people feel like youre telling them that theyre

idiots for example? All right. How do you make that separation?

>> HITCHENS: Well, I think my answers been anticipated perhaps.

>> All right. >> HITCHENS: If someone tells me that Ive

hurt their feelings Im still waiting to hear what your point is.

>> Right. >> HITCHENS: I'm very depressed that in this

country you can be told thats offensive as if those two words constitute an argument

or comment, not to me they dont, and I'm not running for anything. So, I didn't have

to pretend to like people when I dont. >> Right. Thanks.

>> Hello. Oh, thank you so much for speaking. I think were going to have a book signing

right outside over here. So, if everyone got their copy of the book, thank you very much

for coming. >> HITCHENS: How very nice of you.

The Description of Christopher Hitchens | Talks at Google