Christopher Hitchens’ Example to America
Presuming the news coming out of the oncologist’s office is as dire as Christopher Hitchens appears to say it is, we may not just lose a voice as unpredictable as it is erudite, but something perhaps even more precious. Isn’t Hitchens pretty much the last journalist/pundit/commentator/critic left in America whose work appears across the political spectrum? If there is another writer whose work can still be found (and welcomed) in such ideologically opposed publications as Slate, the Weekly Standard, the Atlantic Monthly, City Journal, Vanity Fair, the Wall Street Journal, etc., I can’t think of one. Nor can I think of anyone who has so often genially weaved his way from interviews with conservatives like Dennis Miller and Hugh Hewitt to liberals like Jon Stewart and Bill Maher, not to mention all points in between.
Which may be one reason why news of his cancer has touched so many people: He is one of the few journalists in the country who still seem willing to talk to pretty much anyone. In particular, his well-advertised position as an atheist who has happily spent hours arguing his case with countless religious Americans (true, he likes the sound of his own voice and needs to sell books, but still …) in the full knowledge that he is doing so in an overwhelmingly religious country has made this very English-sounding American who only recently became a citizen appear more truly American than most of his fellow scribes. Could it be that that, as well as the horrible misfortune of the illness itself, is what people are mourning? Are they mourning the possible death of a type, knowing that once he is gone there will be no one to replace him, no one left who is able to venture forth from his assigned political box? (Or worse: no one who wants to.)
The novelist Alan Furst, who writes noir-ish historical thrillers set in the Europe of World War II, once told me how, beginning in the 1930s, more and more people, particularly intellectuals, were dragged, often unwillingly, into politics. Neutrality was no longer an option: They had to choose sides, often holding their noses as they did so. With barely a shot fired, Americans seem to be heading in the same direction. Almost every topic divides and inflames us, and as a consequence we become ever more rooted in our niches and divisions. One person turns to the Huffington Post, another to a site like this one. And there is almost no connection between the two whatsoever.
Hitchens is not merely a pundit or a journalist. He is arguably the last true intellectual we have. I recommend his “Love, Poverty, and War” to anyone who wants to see a brilliant, incisive intellect at work.
He will be missed.
Agreed. He, like me, enjoyed a good debate regardless of the subject. There are others out there who make you think. I especially enjoyed: “America’s Ruling Class — And the Perils of Revolution” by Angelo M. Codevilla.
Most thought provoking.
Hear Hear! I wish Mr. Hitchens well. As a believing Roman Catholic I still enjoy and am sometimes challenged by his thoughtful articles and always interetsing discussions with Hugh Hewitt. A very great thinker of our time, even though we disagree on some very important points.
Bernhard’s lament for what gunslinger Hitchens brought to the table is spot on. Even when he was being childishly provocative, Hitchens never failed to be brave and deeply interesting. He has been the greatest of company for many years and I wouldn’t be surprised if he has more than one good bullet left in his gun.
….I like much of Hitch’s writing. I do not agree with all he writes.
What I really don’t like is that he endorsed obuma. I can agree that McCain was not a good candidate but defecating on the ballot is what a vote for obuma was in 2008.
..and further Hitchens has not come out against any obuma policies which I would have expected him too. The left/marxist ideology has not been left by the wayside as he would have us believe.
I hope he recovers and survives the cancer, and I hope he explains his obuma position.
And I hope you explain how you could misspell Obama.
lol …why do you think I misspelled it?
I have no respect for the individual. PERIOD
I’m no fan either. But name-calling?
I tend to mispell it all the time: Obongo, Obozo, Oblahblah, Ozero, Obowmao, Obummer
I wonder if either one of you can spell asswipe.
Yes, it is spelled “D-E-A-N”
Spell asswipe? That’s easy: D-E-A-N.
Let’s see…
Dean, Dean , Dean.
Hmmm, that’s all I get when I type asswipe on my keyboard.
Mr. Hitchens may be bright , but he appears to lack wisdom ( see Proverbs 8 and 9 )
“The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom , and knowledge of the Holy One
is understanding . ” ( Proverv 9 )
Well, Nimrod, no surprise that you might say that. On the other hand, plenty of other religions might say that yours has been superseded. Are they as right as you? Would they be more persuasive if they cited justification from their own religious texts? Why not? After all, that’s all you’re doing.
God (ho ho ho), I hope Hitchens scrapes through. We need him more now than ever.
Nimrod merely quoted religious text. I don’t agree with his timing, but I can’t say he is wrong either. As a Jew, I find his utter disparagement of Israel a reflection of flight from the very sort of responsibility that Christians also hold up as important. Hitchens, like David Horowitz, fled the Left. Or, he came to America and appreciated the lifestyle. But he never overcame the left dogma, and he never overcame his hatred of his origins – so much so that he commented after his mother’s suicide (she had wanted to move to Israel) that she couldn’t stand the thought of creating injustice (simply by moving to Israel), so she ended her life. While I appreciate Hitchens’ intellect, he has misused it. And I do hope that he recovers from cancer, but what he said about his mother was appalling. Catch me saying anything like that about my mother to a public audience….no, never.
..who wrote that ? …right, some one who claimed to be speaking for GOD.
..it must take a huge ego to claim god speaks to you.
No, it wasn’t written by someone claiming to speak for God. Just because it’s in the Bible and billions around the world recognize it as the Word of God (in this case, every monotheist would do so, since it was written in the book of Proverbs) doesn’t mean the author thought he spoke for God. Before you open your yap and spew a screed based solely on your disdain for those who don’t believe they are the most important beings in the universe, you might want to try educating yourself a bit. You won’t catch me prattling on about what’s in the Koran or in the Book of Mormon. Why? Because I haven’t read them or studied them. So, nice try, but learn something about what you are attacking before you embarrass yourself in front of the class again.
it is hardly disdain that I feel …your comment is more like disdain of those who do not believe in imaginary beings.
I could care less what people believe.
GOD has not spoken to anyone that I know or has ever been known to have spoken to anyone. …like UFO’s it seems a certain type are the only ones ever visited.
it DOES NOT MATTER HOW MANY PEOPLE BELIEVE SOMETHING …that is NOT evidence.
this is the problem I have with religion.
If you can admit that you believe something that there is no evidence of THAT is fine but when people tell me (like you are) that it is the word of GOD …then quite frankly I think you are a dupe. DISDAIN does not really convey what I feel towards preaching.
It’s a bit of a reach to say God is merely an imaginary being, as though God were an arbitrary fantasy spun by a demented individual locked up in an asylum. Is it not the case that the most that a rigorous empiricist could say is that the existence of God is an unproven hypothesis? Before we could begin to assay a conclusion, we should have to define what we mean. Since we commentators are probably not going to do that in this thread, perhaps we should all cool down and focus on Hitchens and what he must be suffering. I am willing to wager that he would appreciate any good wishes, regardless of the political ideology or theological conviction of the benefactor.
Christians believe that the Son of God died for our sins. Atheists believe that God has never lived and so, paradoxically, his “son” must be “dead,” but dead with no purpose whatsoever. What is real for both is death, the sovereign, the implacable, the unknowable and the unfathomable, before which both materialistic empiricism and spiritual yearning must confess ignorance. What is left to us then? Arrogance? The indifference of a Pontius Pilate? Faith, hope, and charity?
Surely there can be no one true apprehension for every person. Therefore, a healthy dose of tolerance is to be prescribed.
Incidently do know about christianity and islam probably a lot more then most practicing zealots.
so even though you claim to be an expert and tell me I don’t know anything I know enough to know there is no basis in fact in religion …any of them.
Mohammad most certainly existed, and I am fairly certain that Jesus also existed. Jesus was a Jew wasn’t he ….and he never said he was anything but a Jew so I would venture to say he believed in the Jewish religion.
Now in the cases of both of these individuals their “holy books” were written long after their deaths. Not by GOD but by humans. You want to tell me these humans had a pipeline to GOD ??
so please excuse me for not believing in religions or gods … I am still waiting for a reliable sighting. Unlike you, things need to make sense for me to find them credible.
so I don’t care how many people tell me there is a god. I will wait for the evidence.
Monsieur Malaise, you knock the Islams and the Christians, but you laid off the Jews.
The Jewish claim is exactly what you mentioned as a valid criteria. They claim that the Master of the Universe did actually speak to them all at Mount Sinai. It was a public and “physical” revelation.
This was and is their claim to authenticity; very out there you must admit. But also, you must admit, their presence on earth has made a difference over the millenia and they are still front and centre of the “news” today.
Room for doubt perhaps?
Dodeca ….the thing with the Jewish religion is that it does not preach or try to convert.
they do not ask that the world adapts to them. they wish to live their lives without interference. The fact that they are a powerful lobby is not relevant to the religion.
Indian Sikhs also have powerful lobbies and they are not out trying to force their religion on others.
you are letting your envy and greed get mixed up with the issues. powerful and strong communities are strong and powerful because they are strong communities. …I have no problem with that in itself.
most people would hire from their family first …then their community. that is human nature.
Dodeca …I consider all religions to be completely man made. …so if yo wish you can insert the Jewish religion into my previous comments.
is it easier to create the universe ..or is it easier to create god to create the universe?
there is a lot we don’t know about the universe but making stuff up doesn’t help anyone. When you consider the damage that humans have caused trying to push one religion or other down our throats or up some ones a$$ you really need to step back and say “I DON’T KNOW” if there is a god or not since there isn’t evidence of one. IN FACT if anything there is evidence that there is NOT one given the dismal state of human interaction.
faith is believing without thinking.
and then man created god.
M. Malaise,
Inevitably, the discussion reverts to Is there a Supreme Creator or Not?
By our society’s rules and habits, ever more secular and materialistic, the “proof” of existence cannot be made, It needs some kind of of blind leap. Reasonable philosophers , unlike the Dawkins strain, have required people to open their beliefs to some form of doubt; ie leave the possibility of the other to exist.
But to be fair, this should also be asked of the secularist; “how can you be sure there isn’t a Supreme Creator?”
You can’t be sure unless you’re a zealot. Therefore agosticism at least and not atheism is the reasonable proposition.
The answer to this basic question colours everything we do or say.
Jesus was a Jew. But, He claimed He was the Son of God, and even God in the flesh. And the writers of the New Testment claimed to be eyewitnesses that He did live, did say the things they recorded, did die, and was raised again. So we must make a decision about these testimonies. You clearly have pushed them aside as crazy or liars. But, there are many, including myself, that have asked, “Why would someone be willing to die for a lie? And they certainly don’t come across as insane.”
Nimrod,
Hitchens is an unbending advocate for human rights, and has such, he has more in common with Christ than many Bible quoting self-proclaimed Christians. Nimrod, “Judge not, and you shall not be judged.”
idiotic comment.
Hope he scrapes through. He’s the voice of sanity and reason – on politics and religion.
“Neutrality was no longer an option.” There can be no connection when one is “neutral”. A blindfold is good when sight betrays prejudices learned, inborn and unjust, but once those are suppressed, a connection to one school of thought or another requires seeing the difference between the too and connecting with one or the other.
The scales of justice were never meant to be unwavering to one side or another, it was meant to see both sides and then tilt the scales so that the just is given more weight. Even more infuriating than the differences that cause conflict, are those who chose to remain “neutral” even when a reasonable mind would reluctantly choose a side. What is the point of having schools of thought if we weren’t to decide which was more reasonable than another? It has to start from some truth, some law, some commandment that demands a choice, a connection. Instead we are being neutralized, neutered as if one thought is weighted the same as another, Lady Justice more concerned that the scales don’t move, a painful balancing act.
Those who love neutrality shouldn’t be surprised if the wind created by turmoil ends up knocking them to one side or another. There is good and there is evil and even those such as Christoper Hitchens who see no intelligence in creation will attest to that school of thought. That truth alone denies neutrality.
I hope Christopher Hitchens beats the cancer that has attacked him, and I hope he can continue wrestling with his Creator because he has a good sense of humor, a voice of authority, and vivid style of writing. I am angry however that he stood so many years telling college students it is a waste of time to pray. He forgot to tell them that he is not great either.
I don’t think anyone who has read Vox Day’s takes (his book, the Irrational Atheist, is another good one and is free for download now) on his work and public comments can call him an intellectual…
I’m sorry to say this, but anyone who thinks that modern science points to theism is an idiot. I’ll stand by my assessment.
“Modern science” is not a person and does not point to anything beyond a congeries of data. Its subject matter is the contingent, things conceived as objects (bodies and/or forces operating in space). To reveal the character and pathos of humans as subjects is quite beyond the competence of the experimental method and the assumptions of naturalism. The hypotheses of empirical science are always questioning, disputing, analyzing minutely and then more minutely. Religious faith is a subjective commitment rooted in a cultural tradition directed to the beginning and the end, an infinite circle in eternity, not time and space. Some people believe; others do not; but in neither case has this anything do do with the study of the contingent.
Right! There was nothing, no matter, no time, no space. And then creation. I’m not talking about Genesis, but the Big Bang.
Right! There was nothing, no matter, no time, no space. And then creation. I’m not talking about Genesis, but the Big Bang.
And maybe before there was a Big Bang, there was a big Black Hole — and before that a Big Bang and before that, a big Black Hole — and before that a Big Bang and before that, a big Black Hole — and before that a Big Bang and before that, a big Black Hole — and before that a Big Bang and before that, a big Black Hole — and before that a Big Bang and before that, a big Black Hole — and before that a Big Bang and before that, a big Black Hole — and before that a Big Bang and before that, a big Black Hole — and before that a Big Bang and before that, a big Black Hole — and before that a Big Bang and before that, a big Black Hole — and before that a Big Bang and before that, a big Black Hole — and before that a Big Bang and before that, a big Black Hole — and before that a Big Bang and before that, a big Black Hole — and before that a Big Bang and before that, a big Black Hole — and before that a Big Bang and before that, a big Black Hole — and before that a Big Bang and before that, a big Black Hole ….
And before any of all of that …?
Creation?
God knows ….
Praying for you Mr Hitchens — and thank you for your life!
Dear BBBeard, 50 years ago, if you asked any scientist “what was the origin of the universe?” he or she would have said was always there or cyclical (a la Hindu), but today ALL agree there was a beginning. As science unfolds, we are approaching ever closer to Biblical truth; after all science is also truth and in time they will merge. There is no conflict , only ignorance. Cheers
you are not correct on the need for a beginning. there are some theories being developed on how it is possible for there not to have a beginning.
sorry I don’t know the particulars of the theory. it is another of the “I don’t know” things.
So, it’s OK to “not know” but believe? Just sayin’…..
Gen Malaise
It’s called the Big Bang and is widely accepted in scientific circles.
The Biga Bang says that matter was created from an infinitessimally small but very very hot “dot” of energy and from there expanded to form this giant universe.
Fully in line with the potential of the spiritual manifesting itself on the physical plane. All the physical material has its origin in the spiritual, the mystical, the unknown. It is not rational; beyond measurement.
In other words Proof of God.
HE IS AN EXCEPTIONALLY BRIGHT MAN AND HIS ILLNESS IS A BLOW BUT HIS WORST DILEMMA IS HIS DENIAL OF GOD. BECAUSE OF THIS I PRAY FOR THE HOLY SPIRIT TO INTERVENE AND CHANGE HIS STONY HEART TO ONE OF FLESH.
ExPat forgives Hitchen’s his Orwell-like anti-Catholicism. I’m a Jew and I forgive him his anti-Zionism. Poor guy is terminally ill after all and for better or worse he is always a fun read.
It can’t be overlooked, however, that open anti-Catholicism–especially regarding such popular figures as Mother Teresa–takes courage while anti-Zionism and slipping and sliding about his Jewish parentage and when he became aware of his ethnicity is plainly cowardice. Significantly, antipathy toward the Jewish state was the single position that Hitchens didn’t discard when he turned away from the left.
Hitchens takes the J Street position that Judaism and Zionism are distinct and a Jew can be loyal to the former and hostile to the latter. He also rejects the fact that Western morality is rooted in the Bible.
George Orwell was the most determinedly honest intellectual of his day. Hitchens, who properly reveres him, is not.
My best wishes to Hitchens. I hope he is not in much pain.
Artists and writers think it brave to be anti-Catholic or anti-Christian. It does not take much courage to be anti-Israeli these days. But they do not dare to be anti-muslim. So much for their bravery. They are gutless wonders. I wonder who they think they are kidding?
Perhaps, but your criticism is not relevant to a discussion of Christopher Hitchens. He has been fearless on all fronts.
not true ….has has been very absent on the present governments abuse of the law and of the constitution.
…that goes hand in hand with the present government support of islam.
I guess when it comes down to it he is still a marxist.
I don’t believe the point is that Hitchens must fight ALL of your battles, General.
Just be grateful that he has fought some of the bigger ones.
Ev630 …why do you try to ridicule me? reading to much marxist for dummies or alinski?
I don’t expect him to fight my battles.
I do think that as a writer who endorsed obama ..I think it would be appropriate that he illuminate his views on the results of obama’s accession to power.
he has no obligation to do so …as you imply I expect.
I like some of his writing …dislike some of his writing.
He was not fearless. He feared most of all ‘becoming a Jew.’ Hardly fearless.
What an odd bit of spin. He feared no such thing. Rather, he rejected adopting the Jewish faith based on REASON. He is however happy to acknowledge his roots.
You know, it’s very dishonest to distort the truth to suit your world view. Please stick to the facts.
Just because he might be wrong about something doesn’t make him dishonest. This fallacy is one of my pet peeves and is responsible for much of the political chaos we are suffering. Not only is it usually an intellectually dishonest tactic, it makes things personal in a way that destroys intellectual discourse. You can call me stupid or wrong and I can argue with you. If you call me dishonest you are running away from the discussion as there is no point to engage the dishonest in intellectual dialogue. Its a cowardly and self-destructive tact to take.
As to Mr. Hitchens, I’ve disagreed with him on a variety of issues and have sometimes doubted his logic. Despite that, I’ve always found him interesting and stimulating. While others such as Thomas Sowell may think more logically or deeply, Mr. Hitchens stands alone in his ability to set out issues and his opinions in an engaging fashion. Where he has really stood alone is in his willingness to change his opinions and stand up to the mindless ideologues who have criticized him from both the left and right. Note that you can disagree with Mr. Hitchens and not be a mindless ideologue, but many of his critics in the media fall into that category In intellectual courage Mr. Hitchens at least approaches Mr. Orwell.
He has my best wishes in his battle going forward.
Yes just what we needed.. another “controversial” and “provocative” journalist.
If Hitchens was a part of any conversation you were sure that it would
descend to Freshman year dorm conversation level. He was incapable of true
seriousness..every thing was a pose. When he came up against real thinkers
like Roger Scruton he was left with a smirk on his face..an awkward moment
that Chris muddled through before resuming his teenage rebel song and dance.
He was the kind of person that could manufacture “controversy” over anything,
especially if it would get him a little more ingratiated with the London
Smart Set, the BBC trotskyites who knew the Big Secret and shared it only
amongst themselves…pssssst… “its ALL a joke..really ALL of it, dont you know
old boy?”
Er, please don’t use the past tense yet.
I personally have mixed feelings about Hitchens. In some ways he’s quite charming, and certainly a skilled orator well versed in the use of rhetoric – an air of the quintessential English “intellectual”, on the surface at least.
However, the more I’ve heard him and read his works, particularly with regards to atheism, the more I’ve found his arguments lacking and Hitchens himself rather callow. His arguments consist largely of recycled schoolboy objections that have long since been addressed by actual philosophers and theologians, relying largely on the aforementioned rhetoric to do the heavy lifting.
That would be fine in itself, except for the fact that his rhetoric is usually so inflammatory, so condescending and intolerant of views other than his own that it does nothing but polarize the debate and militize a generation of impressionable students. On such important issues as the existence of God, or purpose in life, I have a hard time thanking Hitchens for the hatchet job he and his fellow “new atheists” often do on the subjects.
That being said, of course I wish him no ill-will, and honestly hope and pray he recovers from his illness. The many debates he’s done, if nothing else, have been entertaining and attention grabbing – especially his one against William Lane Craig.
I think the premise that there are no long pundit/intellectual/journalist types unwilling to talk to all sides is very wrong. The case is that left-leaning media outlets, and this has long-included the old media, simply don’t allow conservative opinion.
Hitchens is accepted because he is an atheist who picked on Mother Teresa despite having shown some conservative tendencies in recent years.
There is one venue where all sides are given a chance to fairly voice an opinion, however, and this is — prepare for some irony — Fox News.
He wrote a whole book about being contrary. He and his brother have lived well on this idea for many years. More alike than they would like to admit, their arguments are amusing for their apparent malice. An insight into his(Christophers’) ant-theism is to be found in Peter Hitchens “The Rage against God” where he shows how christianity in Britain was mixed with worship of symbols of empire and devalued in the process. I think that is at the heart of his hatred for christianity in particular.
As a brit my favourite (that’s the proper spelling ,honest!)of his works is “Orwell’s Victory ” but his admiration for Jefferson and Tom Paine are notable and “No one left to lie to” was one of the best put-downs of Clinton. He may be a one man mission to increase the quality of evangelism in the U.S. And lets face it some of those sent in to do battle were pretty lame………..
The major source of Western Morality is ancient Greece. Their Military, social structure, laws and society created the bedrock that Rome then modified and passed on to medieval Europe. Greece in turn borrowed from their predecessors as well especially Sumerian and Akkadian cultures.
In particular a man named Solon from Athens was instrumental in organizing a written constitution, articulating equal rights for all, the right of the citizen to defend themselves and protect their property, standards of ethics, morality , etc. There was written the 10 tenants or commandments of Solon, which were spread throughout the ancient Greek World.
From these sources sprang the roots of western morality and ethics, and the basis for Western system of Government and Justice system, ethics and morals.
what the Bible did was distribute morality as it was one of the most widely copied books in history, and spread throughout empires.
Pure hogwash. The moral universe envisioned by the ancient Hebrews long predates Solon. In any event, far to little directly attributable to Solon survives. Comparing his miniscule contribution to Western morality to the vast contribution of the Hebrews is absurd. Did Solon codify rules for pederasty and limit sexual relations between freemen and slave-boys? We can’t be sure. Solon’s purported contributions rest mainly on the questionable attributions of later Greek poets and philosophers.
The Western world owes much to the Greeks (via the Romans). Western morality is overwhelmingly Hebrew in origin. British Common law and the law we Americans live by is rooted in the Bible.
Very interesting research being done on the influence of the Hebrew scriptures on the Enlightenment and ideas of individual liberty which brought about our Constitution. (Most of those seeking religious freedom in the New World – Huguenots and other persecuted Dissenters – explicitly made this connection.) Anyone who thinks we got most of it from the Greeks should check it out.
There are three types of people on the Left: receivers, deceivers, and believers.
Receivers are your run-of-the-mill, historically ignorant, indoctrinated “useful idiots”…they simple ingest anything they’re told to ingest by professors, actors, and rock stars. They represent about 80% of the Left and are the type that you generally run into on internet forums.
Deceivers are not ignorant: they’re evil. They believe that human beings – and thus, society – need to be manipulated and controlled in order to bring about their definition of “social justice”…with them at the helm, of course. They are represented by the likes of Obama, Ayers, Van Jones, etc. They’re about 10% of the Left.
Believers are not ignorant, nor are they evil: they’re just naive as to the dangers inherent in any form of top-down govt. When they look at the Left’s past, they focus on the good (i.e., civil rights, gender equality, etc.) but they dismiss its horrors (i.e., repression, mass murder, totaliarianism, etc.) as a bygone past that can’t possibly arise again, especially in the oh-so civilized West. This is the group to which Hitchens belongs, and they also make up about 10% of the Left.
I can deal with the Hitchens-es because they’re still capable of some level of intellectual honesty and rigour. The others? They’re a waste of time…and the time for dealing/discussing/compromising with them is over. They need to be steamrolled.
Do you not find it the least bit ironic that a ‘leftist’ would post the exact same thing about the ‘right’. The idea that the ‘left’ and the ‘right’ are to distinct entities is simply a way to make ti easier to hate the other and not confront challenges to ones own belief. Anyone who talks in broad swaths about the ‘left’ or the ‘right’ is not a serious thinker in any form. This is what Hitchens avoided, he didn’t neatly fit into either because he formed his own opinion on each individual subject and didn’t care if he no longer belonged in the ‘left’ or the ‘right’. This is what is being lamented here, and with good reason, as ‘debate’ in this country has been completely debased (on all media platforms – yes including Fox news) in the name of expediency, market segmentation, one-line policy statements and soundbites. It makes it easier for journalists, politicians and bloggers to identify and play to their segmented consumer (and for the simpletons who comment on the internet to know what is the right thing to say) but it completely kills any real discussion on any significant issue – and kills any real policy solutions to our very real social and economic challenges that we face as a matured nation.
I don’t agree with everyone of his conclusions, but it is certainly worth taking a moment to lament the continued loss of independent thought in the public debate in this country.
So ALL of the people on the right and left that hold strong opinions on the issues of the day are wrong and the Hitchen’s of the world are right? Wow, we do need hitchens to survive because he is the leader of the only group that knows the truth and has to preach it to the right and left. I guess it is possible that none of the things that are deeply held by right and left are true and that both are equally wrong. Sounds like John McCain needs to be invited into Hitchen’s club
“So ALL of the people on the right and left that hold strong opinions on the issues of the day are wrong and the Hitchen’s of the world are right? ”
Now how did you get that out of what I said? Where did I say anybody was right or wrong? Hint, the answer is nowhere.
But you do provide a good illustration of my point. Rather than look at the logic of an argument you divide the world of knowledge into two realms (right and left) and anyone who doesn’t perfectly fit that most be suspect (McCain in your little rant here). When the reality is neither group is right or wrong on all things, many times both are wrong, but you artfully avoided confronting any of that by using the lables as shorthand for good/bad, right/wrong, me/other.
Congratulations, you did an excellent job demnostrating my point.
you are too smart by half
go back to starbucks – just because people can understand things to be in broad categories does not mean they do not grasp arguments or come to their ownc conclusions
you are probably one of those “intellectuals” that thinks Rush Limbaugh created his audience – the opposite is true
perhaps you are just like John McCain and do not want to choose a side because THAT is hard – buck up – life is not gray – each side knows enough about the other to know that more discussion does not change the fact that we are on different sides – don’t be scared
Do you not find it the least bit ironic that a ‘leftist’ would post the exact same thing about the ‘right’.
Except that the facts are on my side.
The idea that the ‘left’ and the ‘right’ are to distinct entities is simply a way to make ti easier to hate the other and not confront challenges to ones own belief.
Actually, it’s pretty easy to distinguish “the right” – which today is represented by people advocating LIMITED, DECENTRALIZED GOVT – from “the left”: we’re not the ones who killed 100+ million over the past 100 years.
I don’t agree with everyone of his conclusions, but it is certainly worth taking a moment to lament the continued loss of independent thought in the public debate in this country.
What is there for us to lament as regards the willfully ignorant (i.e., “useful idiots”) or the purposefully deceitful (i.e., assorted radical socialists and Marxists)? I have no desire to “lament” anything about them…only to discredit and defeat them.
“Do you not find it the least bit ironic that a ‘leftist’ would post the exact same thing about the ‘right’.
Except that the facts are on my side.”
They would say that two, with equal conviction and equal basis in fact – good job.
“Actually, it’s pretty easy to distinguish “the right” – which today is represented by people advocating LIMITED, DECENTRALIZED GOVT – from “the left”: we’re not the ones who killed 100+ million over the past 100 years. ”
Of course, limited decentralized government represented by those who advocate a constituional amendmant to ban abortion (or is that not part of your ‘right)? See you make a hasty generalization that falls apart when reality is brought into the equation. Becuase everyone would put the facists on the ‘left’, except of course all those who think they are clearly a manifestation of the ‘right’. But if it makes you feel better to think that only the other is repsonsible for everything bad that has been done by human beings more power to you – it just serves no constructive puprose in debate of ideas.
“What is there for us to lament as regards the willfully ignorant (i.e., “useful idiots”) or the purposefully deceitful”
Yes, the useful idiots who blindly follow the purposely decietful Palin and Beck… oh wait, that would make yout he useful idiot. Sorry, my bad I forgot which generalized other we were talking about here.
I’m glad you are so certain you are right and the ‘other’ is clearly wrong I prefer living in the real world where honest people recognize that their assumptions and logic can be flawed and are open to challenging it.
They would say that two, with equal conviction and equal basis in fact – good job.
And they would be wrong.
Of course, limited decentralized government represented by those who advocate a constituional amendmant to ban abortion (or is that not part of your ‘right)?
We live in a Constitutional republic. The amendment process is the means by which THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES decide what laws they will live under. Furthermore, the argument for a ban on abortion is based in the notion of the RIGHT TO LIFE of the baby. A woman’s DESIRE to not take responsibility for her choice to have unprotected sex with a man does not supercede the RIGHT of the conceived child to it’s life.
[See you make a hasty generalization that falls apart when reality is brought into the equation.]
That would require you to make a logically sound argument, which you haven’t.
[Becuase everyone would put the facists on the ‘left’, except of course all those who think they are clearly a manifestation of the ‘right’.]
Why don’t you ask Josef Stalin about that…after all, it was who he coined the phrase to describe heretical SOCIALISTS who weren’t interested in pursuing an international socialist agenda but instead wanted to focus on a NATIONAL SOCIALIST movement.
[But if it makes you feel better to think that only the other is repsonsible for everything bad that has been done by human beings more power to you – it just serves no constructive puprose in debate of ideas.]
I don’t think that because that’s not backed up by the historical record. What is backed up by the historical record is that the most murderous political movement in the history of mankind is based in Leftist political ideology. You don’t like that fact? Tough sh!t.
[Yes, the useful idiots who blindly follow the purposely decietful Palin and Beck… oh wait, that would make yout he useful idiot. Sorry, my bad I forgot which generalized other we were talking about here.]
Give us examples of these “purposeful deceits” by Palin and Beck.
[I’m glad you are so certain you are right and the ‘other’ is clearly wrong I prefer living in the real world where honest people recognize that their assumptions and logic can be flawed and are open to challenging it.]
I’m open to having my assumptions and logic challenged by you Lefties. It’s just that none of you have ever been up to the challenge. But please, continue trying with more of your vague assertions and coffee-house arguments.
Hitchens once said that socialism and capitalism exist in a symbiotic relationship*. It seems that he was remembering his Hegel, not Marx. Whereas Marx deluded himself in thinking that the dialectic could find an endpoint in history, Hegel know better. History is always a work in the the making and depends not on some outside force but upon the commitments made by real human beings in their ethical relationships. It’s too bad then that Hitchens takes the Marxian view of religion. For Hegel religion, although representing itself in symbols and stories, points to the truth of philosophy. And in one very important regard, the revealed religion provides what politics never can: the confession and forgiveness of sins. Politics is much too adversarial, even when ballots replace bullets, to offer this comfort.
—–
*Which often results in fascism, but that is a topic for another thread.
Like others here I have mixed feelings about Hitchens. When he was good, he was very good (see his demolition of Chomsky re the latter’s odious commentary on 9-11), when he was bad, he was and is terrible.
He isn’t a scholar, and his grasp of political realities appeared more often than not mere typical superficial journalese, his output has on occasion descended into odious and dubious hack work. Hitchens doesn’t do in-depth. He disgracefully came to Chomsky’s defence over the latter’s associations with French fascists and Holocaust Deniers like Robert Faurisson, misrepresenting grossly what that was all about (see Hitchens’s essay ‘Cassandra and the Chorus’ published in the Nation in ’77). It was a career low point for him, but he got away with it.
Whilst I am not an atheist, I didn’t have a problem at all with his role evengalising for the new atheism, but often the way he went about it, that’s another story.. He admitted to being a great admirer of Israel Shahak, his trusted source on the Jewish religion. Shahak was a notorious self-loather whose absurd and sinister fabrications re the Jewish faith (and his disgusting justifications for the most terrible pogroms in Eastern Europe)have seen Shahak’s poisonous output praised by neo-Nazis and Muslim extremists as proof of Jewish evil. When it comes to Israel (and thus let’s face it the Jews) Hitchens was a cookie-cutter know-nothing Leftist.
I do hope that he recovers though.
As a function of 911 and life in general, Christopher Hitchens has modulated his stances, which is, of course, the hallmark of a genuine thinking mind.
He is always a good read, even though I took issue with some of the premises in his book God is Not Great (I wanted to re-title the book “Religion is Not Great”, since I had the impression that his real beef is with religion, not God)
His illness touches us deeply because he’s a very good guy, not to mention one of the funniest and most acerbic writers & speakers out there.
This is a wonderful piece on Christopher, Brendan. It offers an insight few of us comprehend: one should be able to talk rationally to everyone, even when we disagree with one another. If we do so, we will have more of a chance of getting through and being heard.
What you say about Hitch is well confirmed by his response to my review of his book that appeared recently in National Review. I was quite critical of aspects of his arguments, especially concerning Israel and his understanding of the issues in the Middle East. He was not offended at all, and told me that he hardly expected less. Now he is even reading the book my wife and I wrote last year on Harry Truman and Israel, which contains a lot of material that challenges his own account of certain events that he offers in Hitch-22.
This past Sunday my wife and I spent the afternoon with him. He is in good spirits, writing up a storm for various publications, and engaged in life. He obviously has bad days from the response to Chemo, but is doing far better than many of us would in similar circumstances.
I join Brendan in wishing him good results from his medical treatments and the vigor to keep up all his great work.
Pat Buchanan is a hail fellow well met, too. Sharp mind and a very funny guy as well. Do you wish him all the best, Ron?
Yes, well put. It’s clear that Hitchens is far more open-minded than some of the creeps who have dropped by in this thread to take potshots at the old chap. They wouldn’t get away with it in person of course – they’d be excoriated and eviscerated rhetorically.
We have Jon Stewart (takes potshots only at southern white males; if his humor involves obama its mostly backhanded compliments; also, he’s not aware that islamic terrorists are creating trouble all over the world and are potential joke-material), we have Victor Hanson, that over-educated, prolific and academic venom-spewer who loathes all poor countries and peoples. We have Bill Maher..who is finally coming to his senses…but not quite. These and assorted hecklers are merely transitory flashes in the pan.
The Great Hitchens, on the other hand , belongs in the panetheon – John Wilkes , Lilburne maybe even Hampden and the Adams cousins …utterly fearless yet spares mocking the poor and the weak.
If i were to be a practising Hindu (I don’t – anymore, as I’ve already reached perfection) I’d say hes the reincarnation of Wilkes.
Long live Hitchens and his mighty pen.
I think he’s a brilliant writer. He wrote a review of Norman Podhoretz’s Ex-Friends which ten years later I still think is the funniest thing I’ve read. It’s achingly witty.
I disagree with Hitchens on many things but I respect and admire his intellectual honesty, his civility and his willingness to engage opponents without resorting to the hateful tactics that have come to characterize almost everyone on the Left. The world would be a better place if more were like him. Unlike him, I do believe in God but I also respect his desire that we not waste prayers on him. I pray not for his soul – that’s between God and him and I suspect that God will cut him some slack – but that he not suffer and that, if it comes to pass, that he departs this world in peace and serenity.
Isn’t it just the most “Hitch-like” of ironies that he has kept his first-name Christopher? No doubt he would say this means nothing except that his parents decided to name him thus, but zpeekink zaikhologically, zer is zomesink geistliche goink on here, nicht wahr?
Why should he change his name? Because YOU believe in Christ?
Stop scraping the bottom of the barrel.
I like Chris and his wit, especially, I believe, for his coining the term “Boy Clinton.” I’ve been waiting for him to continue his semantic creativity, for example, coining “Boy Obama,” but such irreverence may be a bridge too far for a pragmatic leftist.
I am very sad.
I didn’t know.
Christopher Hitchens seems to think the very opposite of everything I deem true and important, but he has suffered a lot and he is an honest man.
He is attached to his blind belief in the nothing …as a bulldog bites a bone. I appreciate that. He doesn’t know it, but he is a man of EXTREME faith, unluckily his sorrow has driven him to the wrong faith.
I hope he will heal.
I pray for everybody, therefore, with or without his permission, I will pray for him too.
When Hitchens allowed himself to be waterboarded and then reported that yes, it was torture, that’s the first time I took seriously that accusation. I’m still not sure that it’s morally bad to torture Al-Queda members, but if Hitchens says that waterboarding *is* torture, that’s good enough for me.
It’s mans-slaughter to forgo the intel that can be obtained from a terrorist organizations operations officers. The Brooklyn bridge is still standing because of a water-boarding session. Full-court-press imho we have the right to defend ourselves.
Best wishes to Hitchens.
Only the Dead know the truth about the Afterlife.
Conveniently for some, none of those ex-parrots can let us know.
“The Western world owes much to the Greeks (via the Romans). Western morality is overwhelmingly Hebrew in origin. British Common law and the law we Americans live by is rooted in the Bible”
Solon of Athens wrote the first accepted Constitution, among many other accomplishments. He was a visionary, thousands of years ahead of his time, regardless;
1) Hebrew is a Language.
2) the Ubaid culture predates Abraham by at least Three thousand Five Hundred Years, and predates classical Adam and Eve by at least One Thousand Five Hundred Years.
3) From Ubaid Cultures sprang Summerian, which gave us the code of Hammurabai, roughly 100 years before Abraham was born.
4) The Bible did spread morality and ethics due to the Guttenberg printing press ( why its called the Guttenberg Bible) able to mass produce books.
It is true the Bible spread morality and ethics, but the root of those ethics are in Ubaid, Summerian, Greek, Roman, Akkadian, ancient Egyptian, Uruk, Babylonian, Ur, etc cultures. You can trace laws written by sumer and other cultures and how they spread out into the rest of the world. It is a matter of timelines and written (cuneiform) clay tablets.
Many of these predate the Bible, and from them come first codes of Ethics and Morals mankind devises and agrees upon into a system of Government and city-states. As the Bible spreads out in the late middle ages it takes these codes outside of Europe and Middle east to new lands.
More ignorant drivel. Ancient civilizational name-dropping is no substitute for rational debate.
Morality as we know it in the West is rooted in the Hebrew Bible. And it was spread by Jews and Christians long before Guttenberg’s innovation of uniform type and leading. (Block printing was invented much earlier.) What Guttenberg spread was Lutheranisnm or Protestantism which, like Catholicism, is a variation of Judaism, the religion of the Jews (Judeans), the surviving remnant of the Hebrews.
Hebrew is indeed a language. It is the language of the Hebrews. Hebrew translates to Ivri–one who has crossed (the Jordan River). A Hebrew.
Mesopotamia from whense the Hebrews sprang certainly had legal codes notably that of Hammurabi. But Western morality springs from the Bible.
Crediting Jewish influence has always been a problem for those who borrow culturally from the Jews. The more heavily they borrow, the more vigorously they deny their debt. Martin Luther, for instance, instructed those translating the Bible to take care that no reader ever suspect that the characters in it are Jewish. The people in the Bible with the odd sounding names should be imagined by readers to be good Germans all.
You’re in good company, Alex.
Commendable individual. And thanks to recent health care legislation passed by this congress, people suffering from terminal diseases cannot be automatically dropped by insurance companies when they need health care the most. Of course, this health care was opposed, often with violence, by the Republican leadership and the insurance companies. Despite their opposition, this vital legislation passed. An act of political courage !!
Maybe you ought to read the whole bill before you wax so enthusiastic. You just might find your liberty has taken a severe hit. Not to mention the sleazy manner in which it was pushed through Congress, in the typically Bolshevik fashion long cultivated by your Alinsky-ite friends, Pelosi and Reid.
Have you ever heard of Avastin?
I have cried numerous times at the thought of losing him. I am so grateful to him for keeping the flame alive; for thinking, for not towing anyone’s line, or carrying anyone’s water. So many others fall short and he goes on being a giant. I love him and am deeply mournful of a future without his input. I honestly don’t know what we’re going to do.
Rubbish. And shame on any of you who defend or exhalt him. When he attacked Mother Teresa that did if for me. She did more for human kind than Hitchens and all of you combined. And his attacks on Catholicism but quiet acquiescence of Islam further denotes his cowardice.
And his acceptance of Obama was further proof that he is the quintessential lefty. He may tack to the right-dipping his toe in but he would scurry off back home to the left.
For some of you to absolve him because he is “one of us” is cheap. Erudite crap: William F. Buckley would have had him for breakfast. Pair him in with George Will on a impartial stage and Will would destroy him.
I, too, hope he finds health. But I will not glorify him just because he is sick.
God? The silence and the emptiness is so great, that I look and do not see, listen and do not hear, the tongue moves in prayer but does not speak . . . When I try to raise my thoughts to Heaven, there is such convicting emptiness that those very thoughts return like sharp knives and hurt my very soul . . . How painful is this unknown pain — I have no Faith.
“And his attacks on Catholicism but quiet acquiescence of Islam further denotes his cowardice.”
-”One of te greatest problems that any atheistic movement faces today is the secular American left’s unwillingness to criticize Islam in the fashion that they criticize Christianity.”-Christopher Hitchens
You couldn’t be more wrong about Hitchens. I know the type of lefty that you speak of when you say that they will attack Catholicism, but stay silent on Islam, and Hitchens is not one of those.
A very lovely piece about Hitch, thank you, Mr. Bernhard.
While I’m not sure I quite agree with everything Mr. Bernhard says, only one thing struck me as likely wrong — “Time may well prove Hitchens overrated as a writer.” My goodness, who out there these days (besides Steyn) writes as beautifully as Hitchens?
I have completely the opposite impression of Hitchens. From the few times I have listened to him on radio or viewed him on tv, I do not respect him.
So many people claim he is a smart intellectual guy, but to me, that is like what people claim about the president. For BHO and for Hitchens, I always say, “Why do people keep saying he is smart?” Maybe people hear the posh RP accent of Hitchens and the “clean, articulate” demeanor of BHO and mistake that for intelligence. But I have to reject the claim.
Well, I hope his cancer treatment goes well but it is a rough road. I have experienced that in my family, and it is heinous. I wish that on no man.
I don’t find him to be thoughtful or intelligent. He is impressed with his own verbosity and self importance. As a windbag atheist he is no match for a person of faith . Frank Turek made him look like a fool several times.
We all die sooner or later and it looks like Hitchens may soon find out if it is wise to deny God.
#26 eman , When Jesus spoke of himself as the son of God and said he is the Truth and the Light , which clever man of his day could match wits with his words ? What he said of the afterlife was and is the Truth. Your task is to simply accept that and receive his blessings. If, like Hitchens your ego and pride will not allow it then torment will be your reward.
The Reward/Punishment System of Christianity is strong in this one.
Your comment reveals that you have an extremely child-like and sophomoric understanding of Christianity.
Someone else mentioned torment.
Do you say Christianity does not promise reward and threaten punishment?
Please feel free to go on.
Eman wrote: Do you say Christianity does not promise reward and threaten punishment?
It does so only in the most juvenile sense.
Let’s start with punishment. The idea of a universal punishment seems to contradict your quip. And that’s what we are talking about – universal punishment. God is perfection. You are not. If you want to be reconciled with God then something must eradicate your imperfection, right?
On to reward. According to Christianity, God elects some to receive His GIFT of grace (mercy/forgiveness/perfection). And those who are chosen are not chosen because of anything they have done or deserve. No one but God knows why some are elected and others are not. We only know that the elect were chosen before God created the heavens and the earth.
Yes there is a real punishment and reward which is why Christ endured the cross – he bore the weight of our punishment for us. And His reward is that some of us will have our imperfection washed away in His blood.
Let’s see if I can put it in a more personal way. And I’ll use myself as the example: I am a sinner – an imperfect fallen creature. I was born imperfect and will die imperfect. Sadly, I aided in my own imperfection. Because of this I can never be reconciled with Perfection and in the end I must endure forever being separated from said Perfection (because Perfection would cease being perfect if it allowed in the likes of imperfect me).
Now God decides on His own and for His own reason to bare the full weight of my imperfection on his own back while simultaneously transfers to me His own perfection. Is this a reward? Sure it is. Am I being rewarded for something I’ve done? Not in the slightest.
Get it?
LOL. Excellent! A palpable hit – funny and insightful.
There is only one reason I love Hitch and it’s not because he knows how to play both sides or because he is muy smarto. But because he is true to his own beliefs.
I’m a Republican because I honestly believe Republicans speak truthfully about what they believe and are more likely than not to side with the truth even if it means hurting their own. For example, the Republican Party would have never defended the likes of a Bill Clinton the way the Left did.
Now if you turn on a political debate anyone with a soul will see that the Left (i.e. Democrats) is masters at spin, obfuscation, lying, strawman argumentation and changing the subject. It doesn’t matter what the debate is, the left will do and say anything they believe will help them win, regardless of the long-term consequences.
Hitch, for all his intellect and grown-up views, remains a BIG LEFTY. But unlike the rest in his flock, he, practically alone, refuses to lie, steal or cheat just to aid lefty causes/issues, most of which he is naturally inclined to side with. He calls a spade a spade. He voted for Bush because he is intellectually honest enough with himself to admit that Kerry is a sleazy, unprincipled mental midget unworthy of being CIC during wartime.
It saddens me that Hitch blames God for all the pain in his life and has allowed that pain to blind him to innumerable truths about God and His holy plan. But I pray, with all my heart, that God will find a way to open Hitchens’ heart to the hope and comfort that can only come from God’s grace and mercy.
I had the pleasure of meeting Hitch at a party in Washington DC about 7 years ago. He was friendly, funny, and engaging. I hope, no matter how grim the news is from his oncologist, that Hitch is able to live on for a good many more years with his wit and his pen intact.
Such a short time, Mr. Hitchens, to get everything figured out. Only at the foot of the cross will you find an end to this restlessness and for your family, comfort. It’s time to be bold and honest.
I’m sad that Hitchens is having to deal with cancer, and I wish him a full and speedy recovery.
The loss of Hitchens would be sad on many levels, but saddest, to my way of thinking, because we would be losing our last public intellectual who became so–at least to some degree-because of talent.
Among all the people which our culture (meaning our media) recognizes as intellectuals, for every Hitchens, there are ten careerist frauds [Stanley Fish], ten moronic clowns [Cornel West], ten axe-grinding ideologues [Noam Chomsky], and ten that manage some combination of all the above [Al Gore].
If Hitchens’ brilliance is selective (on-again, off-again in terms of his brainpower, his coherence and his moral sense), at least it is not entirely a fiction, as it is with most “intellectuals.”
If his success as a writer and as a public figure are based somewhat on personality and theatricality, at least he can objectively write and speak well, as opposed to the garbled nonsense that most “intellectuals” produce.
If his inability or unwillingness to abandon some of the tenets of his [former?] leftist faith come off as dishonest, incongruent or hypocritical, at least he has shown himself to be a [i]thinker[/i] in his ability to reject some of those tenets, instead of being a mindless, programmatic hack.
And [i]faith[/i] is the right word to describe what leftist politics is for leftists. Hitchens can no more give up parts of it (even very ugly and unexamined parts) then you or I could give up certain facets of Judaism or Christianity, even if we lost our faith completely (which I don’t think Hitchens has).
bravo
perhaps the best comment on this page
i also hope that hitchens lives and i hope that he will find the only truth that matters
Who?
We all have to meet our maker one good day…except Hitchens–he’ll meet Big Bang.
Nah, Hitch’s final confrontation will never take place before an enemy against whom he cannot engage in debate.
When I saw the headline on Bernhard’s piece, I thought, “Good. Someone is finally going to give Hitchens his due without qualifying it to death or going on about a deathbed conversion.” But no such luck. This is the lamest excuse for a tribute that I ever read.
Not only does Bernhard hedge and qualify like a timid mouse, he generates nonsense such as this: “Time may well prove Hitchens overrated as a writer, but that’s true of almost everyone who makes a living with a pen.”
Oh? And how did Bernhard make that determination? Evidently he has access to the “ratings” of “almost everyone who makes a living with a pen,” and also has somehow — miraculously — discovered that most of those ratings are too high. Well, I know one writer who is overrated, and I can say that without knowing Bernhard’s “rating.” Zero is as low as it can go, and he has arrived.
What a waste …
The statement “….reminded Americans that they used to be much more open to each others’ opinions” only applies to American before the four terms of Franklin Roosevelt. America hasn’t been the same since FDR set the federal government on a socialist path whether he meant to or not.
Americans respected one each others’ opinions when every had a sense of personal responsibility for their own needs and lives. In today’s America filled with entitlements and posturing as victims Americans no only respect the opinions of those who call for government to intrude more deeply in society.
Americans respect the opinions of those who deserve respect, and reject the opinions of those who do. I know I no longer respect the opinion of American elections after watching how easily an electoral majority of my fellow citizens were swayed by the hollow rhetoric of a such an inexperienced young sophist like Barack Obama. The only pleasure is seeing so many of my acquaintances realize I was right, they were wrong, and that not all of each others’ opinions deserve respect.
Hitch – If nothing else is that Rare Creature – an Honest Man who can admit a Mistake and learn threby. Such creatures are ALL too rare today. Hats Off to Hitch, and so say all of us.
He’s a jolly good fellow, and so say all of us.
Hate to say this, but Hitch is toast. Esophageal cancer has a survival rate of about 18%. It took my dad in 2006. Not something I’d wish on my worst enemy.
I hope Hitch’s remaining time is full of friends, family, and joy. He’s certainly given us much.
Nice tribute. In my lifetime there are only two individuals from the left who were able to command my admiration, respect, and attention owing to their intellectual prowess and honesty: the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Christoper Hitchens.
Nat Hentoff (Village Voice) is a good man too, but then his strong (civil) libertarian streak tends to keep his sinister side in control.
You are right on all counts. Thanks for this.
Mr. Hitchens is an unambiguously good man. Period.
I too wish Mr. Hitchens well and I hope that facing death will give him a new perspective– because he really needs to get over his pathetic jealously of Bill Clinton. It got old a LONG time ago.
Hitchens is like many Europeans I know in this country. While he becomes more American, he advocates for America to become more European… more secular… more socialist. It is an odd thing about immigrants from countries rich and poor, although not as common among immigrants from totalitarian states. They come here hoping America will change into something more like the country they left behind.
well one thing is for sure, Mr. Hitchens is getting closer to knowing whether there is a God or not; he will find out if he is right or not.
I hope he finds out the truth sooner rather than later.
What a miserable person you are. Shame on you.
That was meant to mean that he should hear Jesus knocking and be saved, not that he should die sooner.
How twisted can life be: when Hitch opens the door (in response to the knock) he’ll see Ayn Rand smirking.
Rachel is a good example of the Left’s “compassion” toward those less fortunate. Depart from their narrative and you’re regarded as better off dead. It passes understanding how people who preach equality and compassion can carry simultaneously around so much venomous hatred. Shame on you, Rachel.
Check out John Derbyshire
http://johnderbyshire.com/index.html
and Steve Sailer
http://isteve.blogspot.com/
I, for one, care about Christopher Hitchens because he is an amazing creation. How wonderful eternity would be if he were there to bless us all with the gifts he has been given. However, up to this point it appears he has no desire to be there. I’m praying that he will change his mind in the time he has left. That’s why I care about Christopher Hitchens.
As a Christian, I disagree with much of what Hitchens has written about religion. However, I respect his willingness to debate with people of faith. I am praying for his recovery. You do not have to agree with someone to wish him or her well.
I’m sorry to here the news, while I disagree with much of the left he is certainly a cut above in terms of civility which is almost gone from our culture. He was also someone who was at least dynamic in views and willing to change and grow.
When I saw him interviewed he was so sad and alone. You wish he could convert to faith but ego and self training will prevent this most likely.
Americans continue to be suckered by anyone with a British accent.
Hitchens opinion on Israel is based upon ” facts ” that are demonstrably false.
His dismissive attitude of Judaism, his glaring ignorance, is a testament to his lack of study.
You can not understand Judaism or Israel by watching The Ten Commandments with Charleton Heston or Exodus for that matter.
Glib and droll is no substitute for research and historical relevance.
I hope he gets better and delves deeper.
this is true
John Scully once said that a different point of view was worth ten IQ points
unfortunatley in the American mind a british accent is too
in any case i wish hitchens well and a long life and that he know Christ in this life and the next
“More ignorant drivel. Ancient civilizational name-dropping is no substitute for rational debate”
Thank you for the response, Anonymous. Allow me to respond in kind,
People can believe in whatever they wish, that is the attraction America has for the world. However attempting to dismiss historical fact and substitute faith in place of events in History is where the problem comes in. Ive never read Mr. Hitchens work but can see where it would have conflict with people that believe all springs forth from the Bible.
The Ubaid culture existed thousands of years before Abraham was born, and established codes of Ethics and Morals OUTSIDE the influence of Jews and the Bible, since classical Adam and Eve were not born, and Jews did not exist.
This is Historical fact and no amount of Faith can change it. The Sumerians borrowed from Ubaid, and added to the body of Ethics, up to a thousand Years before Abraham was born. The Akkadians and later Ur did the same. Phonetician cultures modified, codified and spread their cultures, You are reading this post because of a Phoenician invention, the modern Alphabet.
The Word Bible comes to us from the Phoenician Language (Byblos). The Phoenician Alphabet is the prototype Canaanite alphabet from which sprang modern Alphabet systems through their mastery of maritime trade. It is this maritime trade that spread the Alphabet to Greece, Rome and Etruscans. And with the Alphabet was spread laws, ethics, Morals and the Old testament OUTSIDE the influence of Jews or the Bible. If any single group spread Ethics and Morals and Old Testament in the Ancient world, it would be the Phoenicians.
To credit Jews and the Bible with the root origin of Morals and Ethics is historically incorrect and cannot be supported by fact. Morals and ethics did not have their origins in the Bible as they were initiated and spread by cultures that existed thousands of years before Abraham or Jews, Noah or Adam and Eve existed.
This does not negate anyones faith, one has nothing to do with the other. The Bible is a starting point, not a destination. It is one Key to establish a relationship with the creator. It is not the History of Man, it is a History of the Jewish people and their relationship with the creator.
Your arguments are proof of the old saw that a little knowledge can be dangerous, Alex
Western Civilization for some centuries now has been synonymous with Christendom. The entire Christian Canon, Old Testament in Hebrew and New Testament in Greek alike, are of Jewish authorship. Hence, morality in the West rests on the Bible.
Suggesting that this is negated by the fact that the word Bible isn’t Hebrew in origin is absurd and typifies your lack of simple reason. The Jews didn’t refer to it as “Bible” and names attached by others who later claimed the book for their own, doesn’t signify.
Nor is it pertinent who invented writing. The Origin of The play “Corealanus” is Shakespeare not the anonymous fellow, long in the past, who invented writing. Your suggestions first that the Greeks and later that the Phoenicians are the prime source for morality in the ancient world is bizarre. By your logic we’d have to credit Babe Ruth’s hitting record to the guy who invented the bat and the guy who invented the ball. (Batys and ballys in ancient Ugaritic for the playing of pre-Abrahamic baseballys.)
When a Neanderthal hit his friend in the head with his club, his friend was sure to respond in kind. An eye for an eye—tit for tat—surely predated the Hebrews. What the Hebrews introduced was a moral universe with a just creator who loves his creatures and rewards good and punishes evil. That is the moral universe that obtains in the West today, obfuscations to the contrary notwithstanding.
Back to my original point regarding Hitchens and his antagonism to religion and the State of Israel: I believe that Hitchen is an intellectual coward of a peculiarly Jewish type. Like the execrable Madeline Albright, Hitchens makes the less than credulous claim that he wasn’t aware of his ethnicity and was never curious about it until well into maturity. Blond and blue eyed with an Anglo-Saxon name, Hitchens passed for Gentile. Add to this the fact that hostility to religion and the Jewish State are the only leftist attitudes that survived Hitchen’s transition from left to right and you have the profile of very weaselly Jew.
To be fair, Hitchen’s cowardice was probably inherited from his parents. Honorable Jews don’t change their family name to Hitchens to conceal their ethnicity. And honorable Jews don’t name their son Christopher.
In any event, Alex, you need to stop beating a dead horse. Spare us further erudition else you’ll have none left for the fellow on the next barstool.
,
I love to read his work. I will read his memoir. I’m not saddened by his illness ‘because he crosses the political divide.’ His illness saddens me because in accordance with his beliefs he is soon-to-be worm food. In accordance with my beliefs it will be worse than nothingness. I agree with the Christians above (I haven’t perused this whole section) who pray for him to open his eyes and unstop his ears. God calls us all. Letting your intellect be a stumbling block is an enormous shame. God will hound you and remind you all the days of your believing or non-believing life. Listen. Accept. He loves your miserable self.
Blah, blah. Believe what you will, just leave us reasoning beings out of it.
Is it reasonable to think that all of the experiences with people touching an unseen realm – through prayer for instance – with specific answers for instance – across the centuries – on all continents – in every generation -in all of the different cultures and langauges are just nonsense and coincidence and that all of those experiences are something that happened just in each persons head? Is that reasonable? And if you accept that there is that dimension then what is the nature of it? All religions can be wrong but they cannot all be right.
And what do you make of the real, common, and every day stories of some individual that was one way ( a drunkard, profane, etc….)and after a religious experience was genuinely different (self control, peace, love) – transformed. Do you explain this very real occurence through psychology? And how is it that the fruit of the lives of these transformed people is amazingly consistent? This is all true and if you need proof of it then go to a prison and ask some of the guards and other inmates to point out some of these people to you. Do not be afraid to listen to the stories. Its true. It happens. Its real. The truly unreasonable position is to not take these facts serious when you are making up your mind about “religion”.
What a positively confused mind that honors defiance of God as representing the heart of a real American. What Hitch and your honoring him, represents, is not a brave and admirable politicial statement, but a moral issue; a choice of free will to openly defy the very author of life the vault of all truth, all love, all freedom. The mindset of the professional atheist (really anti-theist)has an infinite price. Defiance of authority is no virtue and defiance of the ultimate authority is hardly an act of intelligence, for Hitch has spent most of his life publicly fighting the God whom he claims doesn’t exist. God’s mercy and enlightenment is what is needed. Admiration is not!
I enjoyed following Christopher Hitchens’ sophistry. His game of connecting the dots convinced others unwilling to critique each link, or simply enamored by his style. He was as convincing as his readers allowed him to be. And he did stylize presentation impressively.
And I’m sorry that he suffers cancer.
But I am very disappointed in how he squandered his talents, so promising, spent on degenerated ethics, because he could, and with such flair. He pimped himself simply for the verve of Affekt, as if that were germane to either a cultural icon or to his argument.
His latest ride on the bandwagon against “Torture” comes to mind, as if Hitchens’ self indulging body and mind were any match to the real world wherein our troops and special forces face Islamic terrorists who mutilate bodies. Hitchens didn’t even hold his breath or exhale during demonstration. One second of water boarding does not determine what “torture” is, especially given that spilling the beans prevents/stops it.
I agree with everything, except the part about this being a horrible misfortune. Hitchens would be the first to say that this is not a misfortune, but the direct result of smoking three or four packs of cigarettes a day for several decades. On the other hand, perhaps you’re saying that it is a misfortune for his readers—in which case, I thoroughly agree!
I like his curious and challenging ways.
Hitchens is the Voltaire of our day. Sadly, if that comparison is valid, it does not bode well for him, because Voltaire wanted to become a Christian on his deathbed, but he couldn’t.
You know its a dichotomy with the “Hitchens Boys” Peter is as religious as Christopher is not. Both men have appeared on the Hugh Hewitt program. Both are very intelligent, insightful and obviously exceptionally gifted communicators. I refuse to become involved in the debate over religion and certainly could be turned upside down in seconds by either man. We can never have to many men or women of the “Hitchens Boys” calibre.