Salvo One: Leaving One's Family Behind

Hitchens writes in the review of Pullman's book:

As an admirer of Jefferson and Renan and a strong nonadmirer of Lewis, I am bound to say that Lewis is more honest here. Absent a direct line to the Almighty and a conviction that the last days are upon us, how is it “moral” to teach people to abandon their families, give up on thrift and husbandry and take to the stony roads? How is it moral to claim a monopoly on access to heaven, or to threaten waverers with everlasting fire, let alone to condemn fig trees and persuade devils to infest the bodies of pigs? Such a person if not divine would be a sorcerer and a fanatic.

Oh, this is much too easy. Does Hitchens really believe that a person unilaterally should never leave his or her family behind? Ever? Are there cases where such leaving is legit? Of course there are. Only an idiot would assert otherwise. Now that I have established that it can be a lawful and moral option to do so, at least the argument is on level ground. The problem with being polemical is that once someone pulls the thread of such a boisterous and bombastic banner, the whole of the cloth unravels. So, Hitchens is wrong. It can be a good thing to leave one's family behind in order to serve in a greater cause in some circumstances (not all). I am not the one making a universal and dogmatic statement. He is. I am just showing that his pronouncements are weak. More to come...

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Shake the Dust: Anis Mojgani

White Shoes, White Stones

Going Rogue: Dare, Risk, Dream