I agree, Shinta, but would put it more strongly.
When it comes to Hitchens and Harris, secularism and atheism are merely camouflage for their real agenda, which is promoting full-throated liberal support for U.S. imperialist goals in the Middle East. They don’t criticize Western policies of conquest, plunder, occupation and the imposition of ‘friendly’ governtments on Middle Eastern countries, because they don’t see these as any kind of crime. On the contrary, the only ‘criminals’ and ‘terrorists’, by their lights, are those resisting U.S. policy.
In my opinion such ‘secularism’ is not only discredited by Hitchens’ disgusting Islamophobic diatribes (the thinnest camouflage for pure racism), or Harris’s blood-chilling appeals for the nuclear immolation of Iran, but above all by the fact that they are willing to make common cause with the most extreme right-wing Christian crusaders and ultra-zionists to advance their cause.
CFI’s openness toward these ‘cruise-missile secularists’ is the counterpart of the bristling hostility you find toward Hedges - not for his hand-wringing liberal moralism - but for his (unthinkable) hostility to the sacred imperial mission.
I agree, but I don’t think that is the only reason people are upset and resistant, or that it applies to everyone who is upset.
I think that a lot of people are just unsure of how to process a real debate on a different area of their work. It’s fun to watch debates with Harris and Hitchens as they debate religious figures on the existence of god, but it’s also a bit ridiculous at the same time. We know there is no argument to prove the existence of god, or the validity of superstitious scripture, so we are basically completely unchallenged, it is the illusion of challenge and debate. I think that a lot of people are just not sure how to handle a serious debate. Are any of you actually willing to be challenged and concede anything? It’s a question worth asking.