<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Two Christophers</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/david-horowitz/the-two-christophers/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/david-horowitz/the-two-christophers/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-two-christophers</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 31 Dec 2014 10:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
		<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>By: Miip</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/david-horowitz/the-two-christophers/comment-page-1/#comment-5432805</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Miip]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Jun 2014 18:07:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=64802#comment-5432805</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I am a centrist and vote republican but not because of the religious right but because of important political issues that you &amp; Hitchens were in agreement on. I however disagree with the following statement you made in this article... 

&quot;The very concepts of individual rights and democracy so dear to Christopher are also contributions of religious thought.&quot;  

I disagree with you in that these contributions are from religious thought but rather that they are from human thought that is outside the bounds of theology. They are human thoughts seeking solutions whereby religion is organized totalitarian rule that has finished seeking....]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I am a centrist and vote republican but not because of the religious right but because of important political issues that you &amp; Hitchens were in agreement on. I however disagree with the following statement you made in this article&#8230; </p>
<p>&#8220;The very concepts of individual rights and democracy so dear to Christopher are also contributions of religious thought.&#8221;  </p>
<p>I disagree with you in that these contributions are from religious thought but rather that they are from human thought that is outside the bounds of theology. They are human thoughts seeking solutions whereby religion is organized totalitarian rule that has finished seeking&#8230;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bettyann Ciaccia</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/david-horowitz/the-two-christophers/comment-page-1/#comment-1422622</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Bettyann Ciaccia]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Nov 2011 18:30:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=64802#comment-1422622</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Asus Eee Pad MeMO 7-inch Tablet will run Android 3.0 Honeycomb]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Asus Eee Pad MeMO 7-inch Tablet will run Android 3.0 Honeycomb</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gavin</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/david-horowitz/the-two-christophers/comment-page-1/#comment-60580</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Gavin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 07 Aug 2010 12:12:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=64802#comment-60580</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Richard&#039;s reply is so quintessential  leftist - with insult truimphing over reason. ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Richard&#039;s reply is so quintessential  leftist &#8211; with insult truimphing over reason. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Diva_Debrah</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/david-horowitz/the-two-christophers/comment-page-1/#comment-60419</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Diva_Debrah]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 07 Aug 2010 02:31:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=64802#comment-60419</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[For the life of me I cannot comprehend why it&#039;s significant whether any of Hitchens&#039; wives or his brother were mentioned to the satisfaction of readers. 
 
Yes, &quot;Hitch-22&quot; is about Christopher; however Horowitz is right to highlight the lack of space spent on the current wife. 
 
I don&#039;t buy the idea that he didn&#039;t want to slight anyone. I think it&#039;s just as Horowitz subtly suggests---little attention was paid to a few of the main players in Hitchens&#039; life. 
 
Nothing wrong with that. Many of us are self-absorbed. 
 
Why is that so difficult for some readers to comprehend? 
 
Also, Christopher hasn&#039;t always had the closest relationship with his brother. Should he have made a pretense to the contrary? ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>For the life of me I cannot comprehend why it&#039;s significant whether any of Hitchens&#039; wives or his brother were mentioned to the satisfaction of readers. </p>
<p>Yes, &quot;Hitch-22&quot; is about Christopher; however Horowitz is right to highlight the lack of space spent on the current wife. </p>
<p>I don&#039;t buy the idea that he didn&#039;t want to slight anyone. I think it&#039;s just as Horowitz subtly suggests&#8212;little attention was paid to a few of the main players in Hitchens&#039; life. </p>
<p>Nothing wrong with that. Many of us are self-absorbed. </p>
<p>Why is that so difficult for some readers to comprehend? </p>
<p>Also, Christopher hasn&#039;t always had the closest relationship with his brother. Should he have made a pretense to the contrary? </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: richard</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/david-horowitz/the-two-christophers/comment-page-1/#comment-55522</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[richard]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Jul 2010 17:43:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=64802#comment-55522</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[To see vermin like  David Horowitz and Roger Kimball crawl out of their subterranean revetments to sing the praises of Christopher Hitchens is all the convincing one needs.  
 
Let us direct our sympathies to the suffering Iraqis, Palestinians and other victims of the despicable policies advocated by Horowitz, Hitchens and like-minded louts.  
 
 ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>To see vermin like  David Horowitz and Roger Kimball crawl out of their subterranean revetments to sing the praises of Christopher Hitchens is all the convincing one needs.  </p>
<p>Let us direct our sympathies to the suffering Iraqis, Palestinians and other victims of the despicable policies advocated by Horowitz, Hitchens and like-minded louts.  </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Docsmith</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/david-horowitz/the-two-christophers/comment-page-1/#comment-54616</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Docsmith]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 10 Jul 2010 14:42:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=64802#comment-54616</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Thank you Mr Horowitz for one of the most wonderfully erudite and thoughtful pieces I have ever had the pleasure to read about a man I have greatly admired.  Hitch is a conundrum - a riddle wrapped in an enigma - but his intellect and compassion or rather passion, towers over his all too human failures.  You use the analogy that Hitchens writes like a musician.  Well I think your own &#039;jeweled prose&#039;  about him is a composition that matches anything I have read of his.  My take on him is that it is his very contradictions that make him so interesting - his natural charm and his passionate but literate expression of his convictions make him one of the most entertaining intellectuals I have ever had the pleasure of listening to.  At the least Hitchens fascinates and makes you think.  You may (even quite often) disagree vehemently with him, but you are always grateful for having heard what he has had to say (but never satiated, one could always stand to hear or read a bit more Hitch!)  It must have been a Herculean task to write so comprehensively and incisively on a man to whom you have been so opposed to for so long.  The fact that you both call the other friend is a tribute to the character of each.  Thank you for sharing your profound thoughts on Chris Hitchens with the rest of us. 
 
I pray to my own non-specific deity that the prognosis for Chris is not as dire as it appears to be and that he will recover to continue to challenge and provoke us in word, written or spoken, for many years to come. 
 
Sincerely, 
                 Doc ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thank you Mr Horowitz for one of the most wonderfully erudite and thoughtful pieces I have ever had the pleasure to read about a man I have greatly admired.  Hitch is a conundrum &#8211; a riddle wrapped in an enigma &#8211; but his intellect and compassion or rather passion, towers over his all too human failures.  You use the analogy that Hitchens writes like a musician.  Well I think your own &#039;jeweled prose&#039;  about him is a composition that matches anything I have read of his.  My take on him is that it is his very contradictions that make him so interesting &#8211; his natural charm and his passionate but literate expression of his convictions make him one of the most entertaining intellectuals I have ever had the pleasure of listening to.  At the least Hitchens fascinates and makes you think.  You may (even quite often) disagree vehemently with him, but you are always grateful for having heard what he has had to say (but never satiated, one could always stand to hear or read a bit more Hitch!)  It must have been a Herculean task to write so comprehensively and incisively on a man to whom you have been so opposed to for so long.  The fact that you both call the other friend is a tribute to the character of each.  Thank you for sharing your profound thoughts on Chris Hitchens with the rest of us. </p>
<p>I pray to my own non-specific deity that the prognosis for Chris is not as dire as it appears to be and that he will recover to continue to challenge and provoke us in word, written or spoken, for many years to come. </p>
<p>Sincerely,<br />
                 Doc </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Willieboy</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/david-horowitz/the-two-christophers/comment-page-1/#comment-54312</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Willieboy]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Jul 2010 13:24:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=64802#comment-54312</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A great appreciation and critique of America&#039;s foremost naturalized citizen. As a rule I hate sappy hyperbola, but I can&#039;t think of any other way to say it--Hitchens is a national treasure.  ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A great appreciation and critique of America&#039;s foremost naturalized citizen. As a rule I hate sappy hyperbola, but I can&#039;t think of any other way to say it&#8211;Hitchens is a national treasure.  </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Consider</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/david-horowitz/the-two-christophers/comment-page-1/#comment-54255</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Consider]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Jul 2010 08:19:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=64802#comment-54255</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A point immensely less adressed in the general debate regarding the Israeli Arab conflict is the expulsion of 850,000 Jews from Arab countries in the years following the creation of Israel. ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A point immensely less adressed in the general debate regarding the Israeli Arab conflict is the expulsion of 850,000 Jews from Arab countries in the years following the creation of Israel. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Glenn</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/david-horowitz/the-two-christophers/comment-page-1/#comment-54115</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Glenn]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Jul 2010 19:28:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=64802#comment-54115</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Congratulations, Mr. Horowitz, on writing an incisive and terribly well crafted essay on Hitch. Most of the interviews of him, post-memoir that is, have been flaccid in comparison. Even the excellent NYPL interview didn&#039;t in any way succeed in pressing Hitch on his convictions. So, bravo, it&#039;s great to see such a masterful display of your critical and writing talents. 
 
One area in which I think you are inaccurate is when you challenge Hitchen&#039;s account of Israeli history, but don&#039;t really offer a counter-factual argument to support your challenge. You then go on to ignore vast swaths of history yourself. Even the Israeli scholar Benny Morris readily admits that the Zionists forced 700,000 Arabs off their land when establishing Israel. You and every other defender of Israel never address this point - but rather immediately fall back to validating Israel&#039;s religious claims to the land based on standards that apply to no other nation wrt to indigenous peoples rights. This argument is quite weak as presented and is strangely inconsistent with the rigorous reason on display in most of your arguments. Perhaps you are not that unlike Hitch, keeping your own &quot;two sets of books&quot; when it comes to Palestinian&#039;s rights?   
 
Finally, the evident affection you have for Christoper is well received as we all hope for the best.   Thanks for taking the time to seriously think about the questions Hitch22 raises.  ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Congratulations, Mr. Horowitz, on writing an incisive and terribly well crafted essay on Hitch. Most of the interviews of him, post-memoir that is, have been flaccid in comparison. Even the excellent NYPL interview didn&#039;t in any way succeed in pressing Hitch on his convictions. So, bravo, it&#039;s great to see such a masterful display of your critical and writing talents. </p>
<p>One area in which I think you are inaccurate is when you challenge Hitchen&#039;s account of Israeli history, but don&#039;t really offer a counter-factual argument to support your challenge. You then go on to ignore vast swaths of history yourself. Even the Israeli scholar Benny Morris readily admits that the Zionists forced 700,000 Arabs off their land when establishing Israel. You and every other defender of Israel never address this point &#8211; but rather immediately fall back to validating Israel&#039;s religious claims to the land based on standards that apply to no other nation wrt to indigenous peoples rights. This argument is quite weak as presented and is strangely inconsistent with the rigorous reason on display in most of your arguments. Perhaps you are not that unlike Hitch, keeping your own &quot;two sets of books&quot; when it comes to Palestinian&#039;s rights?   </p>
<p>Finally, the evident affection you have for Christoper is well received as we all hope for the best.   Thanks for taking the time to seriously think about the questions Hitch22 raises.  </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Barry Cooper</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/david-horowitz/the-two-christophers/comment-page-1/#comment-53834</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Barry Cooper]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Jul 2010 20:29:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=64802#comment-53834</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I addressed these issues here: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.moderatesunited.blogspot.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;www.moderatesunited.blogspot.com&lt;/a&gt; 
 
The fact of the matter is that no socialist ever developed any economic system which was not fascist.  Marx, to the extent of my awareness, limited himself to bemoaning the supposed failings of Capitalism, for which the prescription was &quot;revolution&quot;.  That revolution was to be organic, not the result of professional agitators, who themselves held actual workers in contempt. 
 
Malthus was an idiot, as are those who follow him even today.  He presupposes that his mind is infinitely superior to those of the proletarians, who have babies they can&#039;t feed indefinitely, even in conditions of plenty.  This makes no sense.  Africans have a lot of kids because many of them die, and they are needed for agriculture.  Most Americans used to, to.  When infant and overall mortality rates dropped, so did birth rates.  Europe and Japan are now going backwards. 
 
No serious mind can fail to grasp the necessarily totalitarian nature of socialism, and no decent human being can support the consequences which necessarily flow from the implementation of such regimes. Only bad minds and hard hearts can be fully leftist.  There is nothing wrong with compassion, but that virtue in useful implementation is absent from the hard left. ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I addressed these issues here: <a href="http://www.moderatesunited.blogspot.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.moderatesunited.blogspot.com</a> </p>
<p>The fact of the matter is that no socialist ever developed any economic system which was not fascist.  Marx, to the extent of my awareness, limited himself to bemoaning the supposed failings of Capitalism, for which the prescription was &quot;revolution&quot;.  That revolution was to be organic, not the result of professional agitators, who themselves held actual workers in contempt. </p>
<p>Malthus was an idiot, as are those who follow him even today.  He presupposes that his mind is infinitely superior to those of the proletarians, who have babies they can&#39;t feed indefinitely, even in conditions of plenty.  This makes no sense.  Africans have a lot of kids because many of them die, and they are needed for agriculture.  Most Americans used to, to.  When infant and overall mortality rates dropped, so did birth rates.  Europe and Japan are now going backwards. </p>
<p>No serious mind can fail to grasp the necessarily totalitarian nature of socialism, and no decent human being can support the consequences which necessarily flow from the implementation of such regimes. Only bad minds and hard hearts can be fully leftist.  There is nothing wrong with compassion, but that virtue in useful implementation is absent from the hard left. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Abraham83</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/david-horowitz/the-two-christophers/comment-page-1/#comment-53827</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Abraham83]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Jul 2010 19:03:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=64802#comment-53827</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[(cont&#8217;d from above) 
 
Given the baleful socialist influence today in throttling Western economies, it is of some relevance to have demonstrated that capitalism has unlimited potential for growth absent governmental parasitism on SV itself.  Especially as the post-modernists have resurrected Malthus&#039; view that we live in a zero-sum world economy in which the West thrives by the impoverishment of the Third World.   
 
That is, the West is said to &quot;primitively accumulate&quot; at the expense of 3rd world industrial development.  Or here in America or Europe, as the Greenies say, we &quot;loot&quot; nature (or primitively accumulate) at the expense of the &quot;environment&quot;,  further jeopardizing the West AND the 3rd world.   Marx laid the basis for Luxemburg&#039;s proof and must be given some credit, putting the politics of both aside.   
 ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>(cont&rsquo;d from above) </p>
<p>Given the baleful socialist influence today in throttling Western economies, it is of some relevance to have demonstrated that capitalism has unlimited potential for growth absent governmental parasitism on SV itself.  Especially as the post-modernists have resurrected Malthus&#39; view that we live in a zero-sum world economy in which the West thrives by the impoverishment of the Third World.   </p>
<p>That is, the West is said to &quot;primitively accumulate&quot; at the expense of 3rd world industrial development.  Or here in America or Europe, as the Greenies say, we &quot;loot&quot; nature (or primitively accumulate) at the expense of the &quot;environment&quot;,  further jeopardizing the West AND the 3rd world.   Marx laid the basis for Luxemburg&#39;s proof and must be given some credit, putting the politics of both aside.   </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Abraham83</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/david-horowitz/the-two-christophers/comment-page-1/#comment-53826</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Abraham83]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Jul 2010 19:01:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=64802#comment-53826</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[(cont&#8217;d from above) 
 
After all, Marx was not HItler.  His only crime was to have developed ideas--he did not murder millions to demonstrate them.  Was Malthus a fiend for saying that an expanding population could never be fed or clothed by capitlist production demanding their labor?  How much influence has he had in proping up the &quot;Green&quot; movement, or the deindustrialization of the West?  Shall we lay the blame for post-modernism at the feet of Malthus, and burn his books and proscribe their mention in good company? 
 ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>(cont&rsquo;d from above) </p>
<p>After all, Marx was not HItler.  His only crime was to have developed ideas&#8211;he did not murder millions to demonstrate them.  Was Malthus a fiend for saying that an expanding population could never be fed or clothed by capitlist production demanding their labor?  How much influence has he had in proping up the &quot;Green&quot; movement, or the deindustrialization of the West?  Shall we lay the blame for post-modernism at the feet of Malthus, and burn his books and proscribe their mention in good company? </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Abraham83</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/david-horowitz/the-two-christophers/comment-page-1/#comment-53824</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Abraham83]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Jul 2010 18:54:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=64802#comment-53824</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Glad to hear you&#039;ve read those Theories, but what could they have meant in themselves?  Your conclusion, without a defense? &quot;He had no understanding of capitalist economies.&quot;  Just why is that true?  What is your argument?  Seriously addressing his ideas does not put into question your own conversion and standing on the right, but in the realm of ideas, must one throw out the baby with the bathwater? 
 
These volumes were among the unfinished concepts published after Marx&#039;s death&#8212;un-fleshed notebooks, as you know.  Marx himself did not organize such indiscriminate thoughts into a final thesis.  One must give Luxemburg --whose doctoral thesis you presumably have not read--credit for attempting to make sense of them and convincingly proving the relevance of SV itself for expanding wealth under capitalism.   
 
(cont&#8217;d below) 
 
 
 
 ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Glad to hear you&#039;ve read those Theories, but what could they have meant in themselves?  Your conclusion, without a defense? &quot;He had no understanding of capitalist economies.&quot;  Just why is that true?  What is your argument?  Seriously addressing his ideas does not put into question your own conversion and standing on the right, but in the realm of ideas, must one throw out the baby with the bathwater? </p>
<p>These volumes were among the unfinished concepts published after Marx&#039;s death&mdash;un-fleshed notebooks, as you know.  Marx himself did not organize such indiscriminate thoughts into a final thesis.  One must give Luxemburg &#8211;whose doctoral thesis you presumably have not read&#8211;credit for attempting to make sense of them and convincingly proving the relevance of SV itself for expanding wealth under capitalism.   </p>
<p>(cont&rsquo;d below) </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andini Mansia</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/david-horowitz/the-two-christophers/comment-page-1/#comment-53678</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Andini Mansia]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Jul 2010 07:47:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=64802#comment-53678</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I am surfing these websites... 
&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.danamonbanking.com&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Danamon Indonesia&lt;/a&gt; 
&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.danamonbanking.com&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Danamon Co Id&lt;/a&gt; 
&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.danamonbanking.com&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Bank Danamon Indonesia&lt;/a&gt; 
 ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I am surfing these websites&#8230;<br />
<a href="http://www.danamonbanking.com" target="_blank">Danamon Indonesia</a><br />
<a href="http://www.danamonbanking.com" target="_blank">Danamon Co Id</a><br />
<a href="http://www.danamonbanking.com" target="_blank">Bank Danamon Indonesia</a> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: traeh</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/david-horowitz/the-two-christophers/comment-page-1/#comment-53660</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[traeh]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Jul 2010 06:08:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=64802#comment-53660</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I didn&#039;t know David Horowitz could write as he does in this essay.  Now I understand his large reputation.  This essay changes the view of him I took on from watching him in videos.   
 
I&#039;m glad to have DH&#039;s powerful attempt at a summation of Hitchens.  Hitchens has been something of an enigma to me.  He seems unaware that behind the various religious doctrines, however inaccurate those doctrines may often be, are sometimes core experiences that attest to realities with irreducibly non-material characteristics.  Those experiential characteristics are in some essential ways akin to what has sometimes been theorized or verbalized about &quot;the divine.&quot;  Beyond or prior to doctrine, there can be a phenomenology of the sacred as experience.  But Hitchens seems to think the doctrinal aspect exhausts whatever there is to religion.   
 
Hitchens perhaps must reject the experiential &quot;sacred,&quot; because if one does not reject it, then one may naturally look toward the historical articulations of religion and develop an expectation of finding they are partly rooted in valid experience of the sacred.  Then one may even find oneself accepting as largely true one of those historical articulations in particular.  But if one bases oneself on phenomenology and experience, then one will always be, at least to some extent, at some sort of a remove from orthodox statements and articulations of that experience.  After all, no experience can ever be exhaustively accounted for by a limited set of verbal articulations of that experience.  Concrete experience is too rich, too inexhaustible, for that.  There is always more to discover. ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I didn&#039;t know David Horowitz could write as he does in this essay.  Now I understand his large reputation.  This essay changes the view of him I took on from watching him in videos.   </p>
<p>I&#039;m glad to have DH&#039;s powerful attempt at a summation of Hitchens.  Hitchens has been something of an enigma to me.  He seems unaware that behind the various religious doctrines, however inaccurate those doctrines may often be, are sometimes core experiences that attest to realities with irreducibly non-material characteristics.  Those experiential characteristics are in some essential ways akin to what has sometimes been theorized or verbalized about &quot;the divine.&quot;  Beyond or prior to doctrine, there can be a phenomenology of the sacred as experience.  But Hitchens seems to think the doctrinal aspect exhausts whatever there is to religion.   </p>
<p>Hitchens perhaps must reject the experiential &quot;sacred,&quot; because if one does not reject it, then one may naturally look toward the historical articulations of religion and develop an expectation of finding they are partly rooted in valid experience of the sacred.  Then one may even find oneself accepting as largely true one of those historical articulations in particular.  But if one bases oneself on phenomenology and experience, then one will always be, at least to some extent, at some sort of a remove from orthodox statements and articulations of that experience.  After all, no experience can ever be exhaustively accounted for by a limited set of verbal articulations of that experience.  Concrete experience is too rich, too inexhaustible, for that.  There is always more to discover. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Louie723</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/david-horowitz/the-two-christophers/comment-page-1/#comment-53657</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Louie723]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Jul 2010 05:42:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=64802#comment-53657</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Hitchens is obviously a man of great intelligence and broad education. Whenever I have read his articles I&#039;ve always been impressed by his ability to quote obscure figures and events in such as way as to suggest that we should all know who and what he is talking about! I admire his courage in taking on the left and even old friends such as the weasel Blumenthal. As far as his contradictions and refusal to renounce old positions, I view that as nothing more than stubbornness and contrarianism, and I understand his unprovoked attacks on Judaism and Christianity in that light. ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hitchens is obviously a man of great intelligence and broad education. Whenever I have read his articles I&#39;ve always been impressed by his ability to quote obscure figures and events in such as way as to suggest that we should all know who and what he is talking about! I admire his courage in taking on the left and even old friends such as the weasel Blumenthal. As far as his contradictions and refusal to renounce old positions, I view that as nothing more than stubbornness and contrarianism, and I understand his unprovoked attacks on Judaism and Christianity in that light. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Taxpayer1234</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/david-horowitz/the-two-christophers/comment-page-1/#comment-53606</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Taxpayer1234]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Jul 2010 01:17:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=64802#comment-53606</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It seems Hitchens has learned that his political and philsophical castles were built on sand, but he is afraid to fully admit it. ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It seems Hitchens has learned that his political and philsophical castles were built on sand, but he is afraid to fully admit it. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: BoyntonStu</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/david-horowitz/the-two-christophers/comment-page-1/#comment-53583</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[BoyntonStu]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Jul 2010 23:25:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=64802#comment-53583</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I really like the way Christopher expresses his thoughts. 
 
His genius is obvious. 
 
I am very sorry to hear of his illness. 
 
I will say an Atheist Mishabarach for him 
 
I have a question to ask Socialists: 
 
&quot;Who gets the beachfront property?&quot; 
 
 ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I really like the way Christopher expresses his thoughts. </p>
<p>His genius is obvious. </p>
<p>I am very sorry to hear of his illness. </p>
<p>I will say an Atheist Mishabarach for him </p>
<p>I have a question to ask Socialists: </p>
<p>&quot;Who gets the beachfront property?&quot; </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: david horowitz</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/david-horowitz/the-two-christophers/comment-page-1/#comment-53580</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[david horowitz]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Jul 2010 22:58:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=64802#comment-53580</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Good eye. ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Good eye. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Noel Leerskov</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/david-horowitz/the-two-christophers/comment-page-1/#comment-53572</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Noel Leerskov]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Jul 2010 22:07:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=64802#comment-53572</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[From your writings I&#039;ve learned and still have occasion to relate your evolutionary concept of Liberalism as it found birth in the Friench revolution and is now reaching a crescendo of presence with it&#039;s destruction of contemporary America. 
 
The point I want to make here is that Hitchins came through the same epoch of sociological transformation as yourself, but despite his unique intellectual prowess Christopher has been unable to see his error of judgement and clings to his long held perceptions.  I&#039;m even willing to postulate that his flaw is one of base pride that forces him to create this horrendous web of defensive rationale that puts him in the middle and on both sides that defy any intellectual assessment of his primary position. 
 
Thank you, Mr. Horowitz, and I too wish Mr. Hitchins well and pray for his recovery as well as a valiant and clean transition to Conservatism .   
   ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>From your writings I&#039;ve learned and still have occasion to relate your evolutionary concept of Liberalism as it found birth in the Friench revolution and is now reaching a crescendo of presence with it&#039;s destruction of contemporary America. </p>
<p>The point I want to make here is that Hitchins came through the same epoch of sociological transformation as yourself, but despite his unique intellectual prowess Christopher has been unable to see his error of judgement and clings to his long held perceptions.  I&#039;m even willing to postulate that his flaw is one of base pride that forces him to create this horrendous web of defensive rationale that puts him in the middle and on both sides that defy any intellectual assessment of his primary position. </p>
<p>Thank you, Mr. Horowitz, and I too wish Mr. Hitchins well and pray for his recovery as well as a valiant and clean transition to Conservatism .   </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Object Caching 697/712 objects using disk
Content Delivery Network via cdn.frontpagemag.com

 Served from: www.frontpagemag.com @ 2014-12-31 05:27:24 by W3 Total Cache -->