I guess that must be directed at me as much as anyone. I didn't say anyone is obligated to "like" anybody--as it happens, I do believe Hitchens is an amoral prick and don't like anything about him except his anti-religion writing. I simply find it strange and counter-productive how quick self-professed atheists are to disavow people working on what they say is their own side.
I have a brother, for instance, who is a very confirmed conservative, but a relatively civil and thoughtful one. He doesn't "like" Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly personally. But he is perfectly happy to have them out there doing what they do, because they move the parameters of acceptable debate in the direction he favors. That's how you prevail in the long run. That's why we've ended up with an entire Republican party that would have been dismissed as fringey kooks in 1965 and a Democratic party that's basically to the right of Nixon.
I think you mischaracterize Eagleton and Hedges. Eagleton is a believing Catholic and Hedges may have dropped out of divinity school but hasn't disavowed religion. I haven't read their critiques of Hitchens and wouldn't be equipped to evaluate them on theological grounds if I did--any more than I could evaluate the depth of Jeanne Dixon's astrological knowledge if she were to debate Penn Jillette on the topic. But I can say for sure that to discount Hitchen's arguments because of his unlikeability is the ultimate in ad hominem argument.
Fair enough, but to be clear, that wasn't my intention -- I was actually saying two different things. One, that Hitchens is a creep, and two, that I don't find his (or Dawkins') arguments on behalf of atheism very convincing. I also find straw man arguments (theirs and in general) far more problematic than ad hominem attacks, and perhaps was mistaken in mentioning the latter.
Also, where are you getting that Eagleton is a practicing Catholic? As far as I know he was part of the radical Catholic movement in the 60s but has since been very critical of the church. I could be wrong -- other than interviews and articles I've just read one Eagleton book, on Walter Benjamin (another religious Marxist, albeit a Jewish one). But by all indications he seems to be more of a lapsed Catholic than a practicing one.
I understand your frustration that "our side" (left-wing, atheist, whatever) seems much more fractious than the unified, disciplined "other side," but I think that's a misreading of the situation. There are really no such thing as "sides" in such a broad sense, and people who espouse liberal or anti-religious politics tend to also espouse free, critical thinking, which is frequently antithetical to loyalty to a "cause." And of course conservatives are often fractious and independent thinkers too, but "their" causes tend to be backed up by think tanks, lobbyists, PR firms, and corporate money, which gives the illusion of greater unity.
All that said, I find it hard to take seriously anyone who purports to be a representative of reason and truth, but reduces all religious thought -- which encompasses the vast majority of the thought in human history, including many of the ideas that most of us secularists take for granted -- as belief in "an invisible superhero in the sky."
Oh, and Fredericks, Jennifer Michael Hecht is my neighbor! I told her you were a fan. I'm not sure she'll be able to make out my explanation of who you are or how I know you, so maybe I'll just scan your trading card and send her that.
