It sounds like the set-up for a joke, but it’s not: A Jew and a Catholic walk into an atheist's lecture. Both walk out at the end, surprised at emotions his remarks evoked in them. Reporters Dianna Heitz and Jonathan Rubin give their take on atheist author Christopher Hitchens and his increasingly popular anti-religious views. 

On the speaking circuit in the wake of the release of his book "God is not Great: Why Religion Poisons Everything," Hitchens spoke this week to people who packed a room at the Spertus Institute of Jewish Studies in Chicago.

Here is a discussion Heitz and Rubin had afterward but, as objective reporters covering the story, could not say in their original coverage:

Jonathan Rubin: I thought that the real story was why a fierce anti-religious critic was invited to a Jewish educational institution in the first place. OK, so Spertus created a "Center for Public Dialogue" to address controversial opinions and stimulate vigorous discussions. Fair enough.

It still seemed odd, however, to pay to bring in a speaker who would weaken the very mission of the group that brought him here.

Undermining oneself in the sake of intelligent dialogue doesn't exactly make sense in my book. I still respect them for their boldness, though.

Dianna Heitz: I agree that it was a bold move, and I agree with the Spertus' president's comment that the institute needs to bring in figures who challenge Jewish thought. If you only read or hear thoughts that reinforce your own beliefs, you'll have a very narrow view of the world.

JR: Interestingly enough, however, Hitchens talked quite a lot about the virtues of questioning and doubting, but never really spoke very much about what he thinks we need to be doubting — God. God was strangely absent from this discussion about atheism – it was more of an intellectual exercise than a "God debate."

DH: I don't think he thinks Jews need to doubt God – according to him, they already do. He approached it as though Jews having an "atheist gene" was a fact. He glossed over his reasons for believing this and then turned to bashing other religions and extolling the virtues of Judaism. Though the title of the lecture was "Do Jews Have an Atheist Gene?" It was more like "Jews have an atheist gene, so let's move on."

It seemed, from his lecture, that it might have been more appropriate to say they have an agnostic gene, since so much of it was about a pragmatic approach to religion.

JR: Agnostic does seem more appropriate in light of the "questioning" aspect, doesn't it? Questioning and doubting are different things, aren't they? While questioning may be a central tenet of Judaism, so, obviously, is monotheism. One man in the audience said that if God was removed, what is Judaism, and what binds it together? Hitchens had no real response.

DH: I think questioning and doubting go together. You don't question something unless you doubt it. If you believed it to be 100 percent true, you wouldn't have to ask about it.

JR: We're entering into faith here, an interesting topic and central here. On one hand, the Jewish sage Maimonides composed his universally accepted 13 articles of faith, which include the belief in God, as central to Jewish existence.

On the other hand, Judaism values this questioning, even of its sages. It seems contradictory, but I never really thought it was. It simply asks us to examine our religion and our faith through honesty and bravery, and to seek those who have spend their lives struggling with these questions – rabbis – rather than only seeking out people on the street who think religion is bunk. In that case, you're not really seeking an answer at all, just self-validation.

DH: Do you think the crowd was somehow seeking self-validation because they don't believe in God, and Hitchens supports that idea? Would that account for them buying what he was saying?

JR: I do think that, to a degree. The more mainstream versions of Judaism don't do a very good job of tackling God, interestingly enough. They go strong on ethics, on history, on law … but God, that element that cements it all together, is often not addressed as much as it should be. I don't think the educational movement has caught up with the questions most 21st century Jews have about God, and therefore they are ill-equipped to deal with discussions of this sort. In fact, without answering these questions, the mind usually draws its own conclusions. And they don't usually involve a close, personal relationship with God, or an understanding of what he's about.

DH: It was odd that it appeared the audience aligned with Hitchens' beliefs. So were his ideas challenging the audience's thoughts or just reinforcing them? I expected to hear outrage at the idea of Jews having an "atheist gene." Instead, there seemed to be a consensus that Hitchens was right. In the question-and-answer portion, only a few people really took him to task for his assertions. But Hitchens knew his audience. He knew where he could press their buttons and where he ought to pull back.

JR: I expected people to be throwing chairs. The average age in the crowd was about 60, if not 70, and these are the Jews who grew up facing adversity and have very strong senses of religious identity and culture. But I was wrong – these people either loved hearing good reasons for them to disprove the existence of God, or they were too scared to stand up and call him out.

This more religious generation felt no need to dispute the atheist argument. They’ve basically given up. What does this say about the younger generations, whose only dose of religiosity is a few hours a week in Sunday school and then a completely secular existence? It just seemed grim.

DH: I agree.

JR: Granted, Hitchens is an incredible speaker and debater, so I can understand the fear there. But the religious people were basically defeated by an atheist – on their own turf, no less. Defeated is the wrong word – they didn't struggle, they were already on board before he even opened his mouth. Just no one had ever voiced it so forcefully before.

DH: Do you think maybe the crowd came to hear him speak because they agreed with him? The line to have his book signed was dense and so many approached him before the event. We were only able to take photos of him smiling, signing books for people who appeared to be admirers. Perhaps those who would argue against him consider him just another blowhard who enjoys hearing himself talk. I wouldn’t attend an Ann Coulter speech because her statements are so outrageous to me that going to her talks would make me feel I was somehow encouraging her.

JR: I don't know – Jews don’t usually shy away from controversy. And they're often not afraid to speak up or challenge others.

In any case, he pointed fingers at "the other religions" because they were safe targets. What was it like for you to hear him say that that Christianity was some sort of lame offshoot of Orthodox Judaism, or his shocking description of a failed Japanese marketing campaign for Christmas, where they crucified a Santa Claus to attract American customers?

DH: He called Christianity a "stupid heresy."

JR: That’s right.

DH: What was it like? Physically painful. My heart sank a little when he said that, and not because I value his opinions of my faith. My heart sank because the audience laughed at many of these statements or clapped in what appeared to be agreement. I don't necessarily agree with other religions’ beliefs, but I would never say that these religions should not exist or that they were just a bastard child of another religion. You don’t bring yourself up by stomping on others. I know that the audience was predominantly Jewish, so this was a "safe zone" of sorts for them. But it was appalling that a roomful of educated people would laugh at the image of Santa nailed to a cross. Not everyone understands the significance of Jesus' crucifixion, but it is not a laughing matter.

I’ll admit that perhaps I was being hypersensitive. But it deeply affected me that Hitchens followed his anecdote about Santa in Japan with "that's what I think of Christmas." In listening to the audio from the lecture, some people clapped at that remark. I understand that Christmas has been grossly commercialized, but just because greeting card companies and malls choose to exploit it doesn't mean there isn't a deep meaning behind the holiday. I have rarely felt more hated or more alone than I did when the audience seemed to reinforce Hitchens' anti-Christian sentiments.

JR: It's strange – when there are a bunch of Jews together, well – that's sort of an empowering thing. It's not often that it happens, and we sort of feel this burst of strength and unity. Although this is certainly the first meeting I have ever been at at which such scathing things were said about another religion, if you weren't there I might not even have noticed.

But with you there, it took on an entirely different meaning. I could see that he was "dividing and conquering" – he was visiting the Jews and trashing the Christians, and then tomorrow probably visiting the Christians and trashing the Jews. Very smart, when you think about it.

But getting back to your point, I was embarrassed. I was embarrassed that we, a minority, could get swept up in finger-pointing and lambaste another group for perceived inherent inferiorities. It was a pot shot, a low blow.

DH:

Hitchens is a religious bully. And I would like to know why he so ardently argues against religion. I think people like Hitchens are struggling for answers about their own faith, and that's a scary thing to deal with. I know because I've struggled with my own beliefs and what it means to be a Roman Catholic. But instead of tackling those issues head-on, he chooses to denounce it all. I think that's a very cowardly approach to religion.

JR: It's also ironic that he praises the crowd for being able to challenge authority and critique weak arguments and bullies and then the crowd completely caves in and doesn't bother questioning him.

DH: But that seemed to be part of his tactic. He wasn't some bully with weak arguments; he was another Jew, one of the crowd.

JR: So he's not an outsider with strange ideas, he's an insider telling it like it is. You can let your guard down and just listen up.

DH: Exactly.

DH: So is that what Jews really think about Christians? That we have this meaningless holiday that encroaches on the entire fall season?

JR: No, no, no. What I meant was when you are not expecting or anticipating something, you often don't see it when it comes around. I would have been just as shocked if you weren’t there. His comments were harsh, and shocking, but he doesn't give time for things to sink in. He just keeps moving, and charmingly so. You being there helped me slow down and think about exactly what had been said a little more clearly.

DH: I'm glad to hear that. Do you think as reporters we should have checked our faith at the door? Is that even possible?

JR: I don't really believe in objectivity at all. In journalism, there is just the approximation of it created by training and a thorough editing process.

DH: Covering religion at Medill has shown me that, although I can handle it, I could never spend my life writing about faith. It is too personal to me.

I think journalists have to be deeply introspective because otherwise we'll think we know everything. And that's a dangerous place to be. It produces sloppy work and real-life Fs.

JR: Hitchens is definitely unsettling, but I guess that’s his schtick.

DH: He should schtick to things he knows more about.

JR: Like what?

DH: Who cares.

JR: Let’s grab some bagels.

DH: I’ll bring the schmear.