Note in Chapter Thirteen author's reference to Lincoln reading Volney.

(posted on my blog: http://davenichols.net/god-not-great-...)

Hitchens wastes no time making his point clear with the title on the cover: God is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. While he isn't quite thorough enough to completely validate his 'everything' assertion, he nonetheless assaults religious foundations throughout this book and makes a very convincing case that religion has undermined many of the very causes it claims to support.

He jumps right in by offering that 'religion spoke its last intelligible or noble or inspiring words a long time ago: either that or it mutated into an admirable but nebulous humanism...." Following that up, he spends several chapters pointing out how religion has led to the massacre of millions and the destruction of physical structures and moral guidance.

Throughout, he argues against religion from words taken in context from the Bible, Koran, and other sacred tomes. Personally, I felt he went easy on religion on a couple of subjects where there was ample ammunition available for overwhelming argument. He seems determined to make this book accessible, however, and brevity is a key to achieving that goal.

Hitchens brilliantly consolidates his counterarguments to creationists and those who would condemn 'atheists' such as Stalin. As he points out, and has been very well presented by many others, including Sam Harris, the problem with Stalin (or any other hard-line state such as communist China or Pol Pot's 'government' in Southeast Asia) was not due to atheism, it was because those leaders replaced the position of deity with the state. Just like religion, Stalin demanded subjagation, mandated overseers of privacy and pleasure, intimidated rivals (and potential rivals) to his order, and enforced his rules with brutality. Pol Pot himself was an avowed atheist who sought to destroy anyone who might challenge his power, including the religious, the non-religious, and specifically the well-educated. As expected, Hitchens reasons, replacing the deity with a state or head of state, and following similar behavior enforcement methods as any major religion will lead one to the same attrocities and evils delivered repeatedly by the ruling religions.

It is very hard to argue with Hitchens under normal conditions, but in this book he is in his element, using his experience as a widely-travelled journalist and social commentator to provide personal anecdotes to color the narrative. He sticks to history and more empirical determinations when making his conclusions, however, which offers the reader, in the latter half of the book, reasons why skepticism and atheism were persecuted and forced to hide until only very recently. He finishes up with a call for a new enlightenment, one where religion is not allowed a seat at the table.

Those that share Hitchens' views will thoroughly enjoy this book and find loads of ammunition for their arguments (though not many new ones to those readers well versed in Dawkins, Harris and biblical criticisms). To the skeptical but unconvinced moderates, there is a lot to approach here, and Hitchens will have presented an excellent discussion in favor of religion's 'poisonous' nature. For the religious reader willing to question his/her own beliefs in order to strengthen them, there are certainly gaps in his argument they will undoubtedly notice (and to be fair, not even a 10,000 page book could completely fill those gaps). To the devout...well, they never opened the book to begin with. The closed-minded and the overly confident will find nothing enjoyable about this book. Four and one-half stars, and highly recommended. ( )

Stimulating reading although he has to stretch his biographical evaluation of both Martin Luther King and Gandhi to make his argument that religion does not pay.

Hitchens faults King for not bringing about an end to slavery and of course many religious believers for many years upheld slavery. But, as a corrective, Hitchens too harshly dismisses King's achievement (p. 180). It was a profound devotion to the Christian understanding of God that motivated King. And, it is a corollary achievement of American Christian culture to recognize a Biblical call to witness in racial matters. It would be a distortion of the King legacy to not recognize that Americans of all colors responded to a distinctive, and religiously Christian message to end racism.

Likewise, in regards to Gandhi, a religious message is given short shrift. Hitchens criticizes Gandhi for striking the British at an opportune time: when Japan threatened British hegemony in India. Except, they did not. Hitchens claims that Japan did their fighting for him, as a criticism of Gandhi's pacifism. It seems to me that Gandhi was just an astute tactician when the British had other options. Indians responded to the religious call to strike at the heart of British colonialism. And, as Hitchens is forced to state, Japan "was on the frontiers of India itself" (p. 183). Japan did not enter India though so Hitchens' statement that Gandhi let the "Japanese imperialists do his fighting for him" was not true (p. 183).

Hitchens should not be allowed to smugly assert that religious people can not be canny, timely, and politically astute. Religion does not spoil the ability of religious leaders to improve the lot of their adherents.

Hitchens is on stronger ground to directly state that the Koran is a rehash of Jewish and Christian myths. Islam, with no Reformation, and no internal self-critical tradition, is the least adjusted world religion to the obvious contradictions of living in the modern world with a pre-modern mindset. Any historical example to critically examine the claims of Islam has resulted in repression (p. 125). The accounts of Muhammad (d. 632) "are hopelessly corrupted into incoherence by self-interest, rumor, and illiteracy" (p. 127). "The first full account of his life was set down a full hundred and twenty years later by Ibn Ishaq, whose original was lost and can only be consulted through its reworked form, authored by Ibn Hisham, who died in 834" (p. 129). In addition, there is no way of determining how the competing accounts and traditions were collated and edited to form the text of the Koran. We are left with conjecture and hearsay as to the actual message of Muhammad.

The chaotic manner in which the Koran was assembled gave rise to the more pressing issue of succession, a controversy characterizing Islam and one in which Muslims have never solved. At the very least though, one major tradition, either the Sunni or the Shia--must by definition be incorrect. Islam though internally has attempted reformation so the statement that there has no improvement in the Islamic tradition strictly speaking is false, as Hitchens correctly points out (p. 136).

The primary issue though is a similar willingness, as Jews and Christians have allowed and benefited from, to examine the Scriptural claims to objective, scholarly examination. The consensus of religious obscurantism though has precluded "free inquiry and the emancipating consequences that it might bring" (p. 137).

Meanwhile, rogues, terrorists, mullahs, and misguided Islamists predominate and prey unmolested upon unwary victims.

I was impressed with the research that Hitchen's put into this book. He uses many quotes and references many well-known and lesser known works by writers far and wide. This adds credence to his argument against organized religion being a source of security in our present life or our after-life. He uses different religions to point our how faith and the faithful are less than convincing in their reassurances that your faith in God will bring you to a glorious end, to a place where we will view others being punished for their wrong deeds. He makes a volatile issue one that can be seen through history's spyglass as an on-going deception on a huge scale. Those faithful that insist on certain behaviors qualifying you for eternal life at the hands of God most often reveal themselves to be hypocrites, which Mr. Hitchens proves with thorough research and logic , on the part of some of our world's greatest thinkers. While it is not an easy subject he makes it easier to broach by putting a human face on different events or discoveries that bring into question religion's emphasis on blind faith. He provides a great deal of possibilities for future research on the part of the reader because he references many famous works and cites many well-known scientists, writers, and brilliant minds of this century and previous centuries. If you are at all curious about the stranglehold that religion has on the masses,don't miss this book. ( )

this book made me feel like i was stupid. I liked the points but I really did not feel like i knew enough to "get" it all. ( )