My Friend Christopher

I did my mourning for Christopher when he was given his death sentence last July and appeared in public as a punished shell of his former self. For those of us who knew him, it was hard to watch and painful to think about. Christopher was a great entertainer and everyone will miss him for that. He was also an outspoken if inconsistent moralist, and a fearless champion of the right to think and speak one’s mind, and he will be remembered gratefully for that.

Christopher had a dark, mean side, which was not so likeable, and whose bile was directed at religious people and select conservatives like Ronald Reagan, and for some reason celebrities like Lady Di. But his wit and verbal bravura were irresistible and helped many to forgive him his transgressions. When he was struck with cancer, thousands of his targets directed prayers for him to heaven in the face of his ridicule.

He was a man of the Left to the end, and that is where he went to die. In his last decade he had held his comrades to account for their malicious support for the tyrant in Iraq and their equally disgraceful attacks on their country for its support for freedom. It was his remarkable achievement to retain his standing in a movement committed to those ends. He was able to do so in part because of his final campaign against God, which occupied the main part of his dying days. I understand why Christopher did this, even though its ordeals took precious time and attention from his family and friends and from himself. He was when all was said and done a romantic, who sacrificed his life in this world to the fantasy of a future he imagined – first without capitalism and then without faith.

I have missed Christopher since the day he was given his death sentence. I have reflected more than once on the times I saw him early in the day with a drink in one hand and a cigarette in the other and the look of a man who had been freshly mugged, and thought my friend is killing himself, knowing that there was nothing I could say or do to stop him. After his diagnosis, Christopher defended his reckless self-destruction saying it helped to make his life give off “a more lovely light.” I think it did for him, and am glad for that, though those of us who enjoyed its pleasures will wish he had found some other way to shine.

  • radicalconservative

    Christopher Hitchens was a moralizing atheist, which is a total contradiction and demonstrates his defective lack of cognitive dissonance. If there is no God, then ANYTHING is permissible, period, the end! Do NOT try to tell me right from wrong if we are simply “evolved apes” who arose from “evolution”. By damn if we are just animals then we may act like animals and YOU have no business telling me that ANYTHING I do or don’t do is wrong!!!! ; including walking over to your house, beating you on the head with a club, cutting out your liver and eating it for dinner. Now grow up and admit that you KNOW that is immoral and that humans are NOT animals!

    • Bill Becker

      Amen.

    • Yeshayahu Goldfeld

      Allow me to venture my opinian that there is no god and that anything is permissible.The balance in nature and in our lives is dictated by the Darvinian laws.

      • http://www.dikaesha.pbwiki.com Foolster41

        Anything? Including murder and rape? This seems a dangerous positition to hold, regarldess of whether you believe in God or not.

    • TG Browning

      Hitchens was above all, a man of integrity. While many are handcuffed to whatever stance their ideological beliefs dictate, he was not. He came out against or for things on a case-by-case basis and let the chips fall where they may. In that, he emulated George Orwell (and I recommend his book on Orwell) by criticizing the left on many, many issues, even though his own personal believes might be otherwise.

    • tarleton

      I strongly suspect that there is a secular explanation for the universe and that God is indeed a fabrication , but I wouldn't DARE inform you of it as you are clearly another person who cannot exist without a wrathful father figure threatening accountability …if God never existed it would indeed be necessary to invent him …religion is a placebo , but it's undeniable that it usually works

      Mankind is a sinful creature and the very thought that if there is no accountability it would be OK to rape and pillage is very revealing …hmmm….there are some very dark corners in the human mind , methinks

    • Davidj

      Well put.

    • Mo_

      While what you have said here is true, perhaps on a page where someone is paying a tribute to their friend is not the place to be sharing it.

    • JasonPappas

      Only someone ignorant of Western History could believe that God is required for ethical knowledge. Aristotle and Cicero wrote the core ethical treatise of our philosophical tradition using naturalistic arguments to ground ethics . Thank God that Aquinas gave Christians grounds for accepting and celebrating Aristotle just as Muslims were ridding their house of classical philosophical thought. I have no qualm with those who absorb great ethical thinking into a religious framework. But let's credit our Greco-Roman heritage for the ideas that make Western Civilization great. Indeed, I see common ground. Natural law and natural rights united our founding fathers. They can unite us again.

      • kafirman

        Our founders saw that natural law was self evidently derived from "nature's God." Certainly atheism does not buttress natural law.

        • JasonPappas

          Natural law is derived from observing nature–not revelation. Whether one believes nature is God’s creation is merely a cosmological footnote. Both theist and atheist can agree on the laws of nature. One’s interpretation of scripture is irrelevant. That’s why the best religious commentators conform their theology to the best philosophical writings. It’s the naturalistic thought of Aristotle and Cicero that is the source of natural law and natural rights that underwrote the founding of our nation. God is optional but feel free to believe.

    • 11bravo

      If there is no God, then ANYTHING is permissible, period.
      Is this the best you got? Religion doesn't give you much amunition does it? Human beings were moral before religion was invented butter-cup!

    • tarleton

      radical conservative ?…fundamentalist nutcase more like it …folks like you would burn every book on evolution IF YOU COULD ….I strongly suspect you would burn the folks who teach it too ?

      Anyone with an interest in 16 C european history understands how you ''true believers '' would behave if you got the chance

      • http://www.dikaesha.pbwiki.com Foolster41

        Please. He didn't say that at all, it's just nasty conjecture. One can disagree with evolution without wanting to burn books, 'r "the folks who teach it too". Do you want to burn bibles and Creationists? It would be just a justifiable assumption.

        He only pointed out the more harsh and militant atheist, which you are only helping proving his case by jumping on him like this.

        I may agree that maybe such thoughts on Hitchens MAY be inappropriate here without any balancing praise, but you didn't even comment on this.

        • tarleton

          Evolution is the deadly enemy of all fundamentalists , moslem , jewish and christian ….don't be niave and foolish , these folks tolerate evolution because the law requires them to and without the protection of the law would burn EVERY book …this is not about a difference of opinion , it's about ''true believers ''…religion is a powerful and potent brew , it's not for fair minded objective folk
          I don't care to burn Bibles or korans because I'm not a ''true believer'', just an agnosticand skeptic , who is well aware of what religious folk are capable of

          • http://www.dikaesha.pbwiki.com Foolster41

            "Evolution is the deadly enemy of all fundamentalists , moslem , jewish and christian ….don't be niave and foolish , these folks tolerate evolution because the law requires them to and without the protection of the law would burn EVERY book"
            Uhhuh. This is once again a giant sweeping exaggeration. I'm a Christian who believes that macro evolution as a explanation for the existence of the earth is wrong (And this is an incredibly bad place to start a debate on that!), but I honestly do not feel any violence towards evolutionists or a desire to burn the books. Perhaps you can point out where this has been happening? How many religious people have murdered evolution because of evolution, or burned books on evolution in the last 100 years? When and where? That you believe that a large number of Christians, Jews etc. wish to destroy books on evolution and harm people for their believes speaks of an amazing bigotry,. It's not in any Christian or Jewish teachings I can find to harm people who disagree with you. I do remember something about turning another cheek.

            ".religion is a powerful and potent brew , it's not for fair minded objective folk" This is just petty name calling,.

            "I don't care to burn Bibles or korans because I'm not a ''true believer'', just an agnosticand skeptic , who is well aware of what religious folk are capable of"

            Yes, because there weren't any atheist mass-murders like Stalin, Pol Pot or Mao who used their atheistic ideologies to excuse their actions. You make it sound like on one hand the crazy God-believing people who if let loose woulkd destroy the world, and on the other hand the rational, good non-beleivers, as if there wen't atheist monsters, or believing "saints" (for lack of a better word).

    • jason

      Only something an religious person would write, think, and yes do.

  • radicalconservative

    Anyone who writes a nasty book about Mother Theresa and calls the book “Missionary Position” has to have had a mean streak. Christopher Hitchens didn’t disbelieve in God, but rather was ANGRY at God for the problem of human suffering. That is a large part of the psychology of “atheism”. If a man truly disbelieves in God, he doesn’t battle religion the way Christopher did, but simply practices “live and let live”. After all, if you really disbelieve in God, WHO CARES WHAT HAPPENS!!!! EVER!!!

    • tarleton

      folks like you do represent the general nature of mankind …ergo ..it is necessary for you to believe in God , even if it's make believe …furthermore , I suspect it's safer for the rest of us for you to believe in God too….I 'll got more sense than to try and convince you otherwise

      • radicalconservative

        There’s a shortage of cognitive dissonance inside your head. You equate mankind with animals. Ok.
        Zebra: please mr. lion, don’t eat me.
        Lion: why not?
        Zebra: i don’t like it.
        Lion: so what?
        Now Mr. Enlightened tarleton dude who doesn’t need God to behave morally, I am not saying that I need God to behave morally. I am saying that the interaction between the zebra and the lion exists outside of any question of morality. It is an amoral, not immoral, thing for a lion to eat a living zebra. If you and I are ontologically the SAME as animals, then there is NO morality, no right or wrong, there is simply “whatever”. SEE?!?!?!?!

        • tarleton

          No , that's exactly what you're saying ……YOU NEED GOD TO BEHAVE MORALLY …I agree YOU DO !…you are also saying that the rest of mankind does too ….not necessarily true …we aren't all cast from the same mold

          This is a typical argument from a fundamentalist nutter

    • Davidj

      Nice assessment. So true.

    • 11bravo

      Yeah, you may be right…but Chris had to make a living, so battling God makes more than live and let live. I would say he was a practising capitalist though he didn't like the system much.

    • Taxpayer1234

      Wow. You made a great point not just about Hitchens, but about rabid atheists in general. That gives me a lot of insight into my late father's atheism. (He also died of EC, in 2006.)

  • http://ParadigmsandDemographics Rich Kozlovich

    I read one of his books a few years ago and was struck his willingness to attack those on the left with the same virulence as he did on the right. It is clear that he had a quality uniquely different from all of the rest of the left…..consistency, which I did find admirable, especially since I disagreed with virtually everything he said or stood for. Having said that, at best, he was a leaky vessel when it came to moralizing against anyone.

    While railing against man’s inhumanity against man he actively supported a philosophy that is misanthropic. Dystopia follows leftism just as sure as Sancho Panza followed Don Quixote.

    He claimed to be an atheist, but in reality “Leftism” was his religion, along with his own self worship. His claims of atheism and his lifestyle suggests that atheism was as good a way as any of justifying his lack of real moral foundation. As one person said here…if you don’t believe in an ultimate moral authority then everything is morally acceptable. However, since Hitchens rejected a higher moral authority and yet moralized he apparently decided that he would be the ultimate moral authority. Hitchens would now be the arbiter of right and wrong. Hitchens would now be his own god.

    I find your romantic vision of this man worthy only in the fact that you did not turn on an old friend. You affectionate loyalty to your friendship speaks well of you, but he was what he was no matter how the picture is painted or repainted.

    Please forgive me for speaking so blundly about your friend, buy brilliance wasted on fools is still waste.

    • janet parker

      I found the man infuriating…your explanation makes me understand why.

  • Tim Nelson

    I heartily disagreed with HItchens on occasion, agreed with him on others.

    I loved his unabashed faith in America and his forthright willingness to name the enemy after 9/11. His defense was stirring, eloquent and occasionally refreshingly rude.

    My favorite clip of him on Bill Maher.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PW4dYG9VjgA

    • mlcblog

      Thank you. That was a fun interview to watch on the ever-lame Maher show.

      Somehow the man fascinated me. He had his own take on things and was so able to speak them. I enjoyed that he was full of contradictions and wit and conviction.

      We miss him.

  • Wideband

    RIP to a committed idealist. One wonders what the conversation between him and God went like.

    • mlcblog

      I don't think he got there.

      • http://www.fullcirclethinker.com Dave

        Oh, he got there. He just didn't stay there…..

        • mlcblog

          This is all pure conjecture, of course.

  • Robert Schneider

    I respected his honesty and integrity, I respected his great intellect. I never could or would defend his atheism. I certainly prayed for his conversion. I hope he found God, even if privately and silently, in his last days.

    • Paula

      Me too. Something about him said , Little Boy Lost and I so hope he found peace with God at the last.

  • StephenD

    David, I remind you what your name sake had said of your friend in Pslam 14:1 "The Fool says in his heart, there is no G_d."
    I don't expect that he will rest in peace. I wouldn't wish that on anyone.

    • Fray222

      David Horowitz is an agnostic. He's going to the same place Hitchens is if you believe that nonsense.

      • StephenD

        David isn't dead. He still has a chance.
        If you think what King David said in the Psalm is "nonesense" I'll tip one back one day for you too I guess.

        • Advocatus

          Do Jews, Hindus and Buddhists, too, go to hell, or is it just atheists in your august opinion?

          The religiously minded love quoting Psalm 14:1 in defense of their faith. They have yet to explain satisfactorily how that provides any evidence for their beliefs. If anything, the existence of God should be self-evident, should it not, without the need for blind faith in it.

          • VegasLiberty

            Actually, Advocatus, the existence of God is very much self-evident to me and to millions of others. The incredible symmetry, orderliness, and beauty of the world around us points our hearts and minds to the one and only Explanation for this state of nature. We have faith, yes, because we can't "prove" this assertion, but that faith is far from blind. To us, it is more accurate to term as blind faith the proposition that everything we see around us is merely some kind of cosmic accident rather than a creation with an Intelligent Creator behind it all.

          • http://apollospaeks.blogtownhall.com/ ApolloSpeaks

            VegasLiberty

            It was Hitchens who had blind faith in God's non-existence.

          • Advocatus

            VegasLiberty, If you think the existence of God is self-evident in the "incredible orderliness" etc. of the world, you may want to explain the following: Do you believe that God created all that vastness of space out in the universe, which as far as we know is inhospitable to life, just for the benefit of a tiny planet that happens to harbour life. And even on that tiny planet life forms have constantly been on the verge of extinction. Some 99% of all species that have ever existed are now extinct. Meanwhile, our benign Creator also saw it fit to unleash countless parasites, viruses and bacteria that case untold suffering and death to all sentient beings without exception.

          • LindaRivera

            It's not a blind faith! The human body is amazing; highly intricate. A masterpiece! The same with the universe. You can't get something out of nothing! Design demands a Designer. The Designer is God. The heavens declare the Glory of God!
            We have a conscience. A conscience demands a moral Law Giver. The moral Law giver is God.

          • StephenD

            Advocatus,
            “If anything, the existence of God should be self-evident, should it not, without the need for blind faith in it.”

            You dislike the idea of hell. So do I. It is abhorrent.

            I wonder though, you would have a standard that demands self-evidence. Your standards are based upon what? Unchanging truths that are carved in stone or are these standards merely what you conclude today? If they are unchanging how did they come to be that way? Are they for all and above the dictates of any single person? How are these known to be true? Of course, we would have to have “blind faith” in this conclusion of yours if we accept they are above and for all. If they are merely of your making they have no more legitimacy than my conclusions.

          • StephenD

            If they are above all they are of SOME beginning or permanence; from and forever. I’d say this inches closer to a “G_d” more than away wouldn’t you? Any Values we may hold that are unchanging, and we all agree they are true (Fair Play, Honesty, Compassion, etc.) are apart and above any one person and for me they are from G_d. If not, then they are of no more “value” than one that would steal your last bite of bread. If morals (standards) are our invention the thief is just as credible as the saint. I don’t believe it can be.
            I recall a long time Ago being moved by a small book I’ll suggest you read. It is called “Mere Christianity” by C.S. Lewis. I am a simple man. He was a scholar and was decidedly better able to present than I. Please read it.

          • Advocatus

            StephenD, I don't find Lewis's arguments particularly compelling. If memory serves they go something like this: "Jesus declared himself the Son of God. To have done so, he must have been either a fraud, crazy or someone telling the truth." Now, Lewis opts for the latter. One could simply argue: "Mohammed declared himself God's last and true prophet…" You get the idea.

          • Advocatus

            StephenD, you love quoting your Bible chapter and verse, yet are clearly unfamiliar with the history of biblical compositions and their historical context. What in the Bible is "unchanging truth"? The earlier books of the Bible do not seem to know of an afterlife beyond a very vaguely defined concept. The idea of an afterlife was much more prominent in Ancient Egypt than in Ancient Israel. It wasn't until the influence of Near Eastern and Greek ideas much later on that the vision of a Heaven with the souls of the saved in it began to be a part of Judaism. It was something that found true expression only in Christianity what with Jesus being seen as God's son who came to save us from our sins as per a verse in Isaiah. Meanwhile, rationalists like to look at the world from an empirical point of view and base their judgments on empirical evidence. This mumbojumbo about "Intelligent Design" and the like doesn't work with anyone who knows his science and history.

          • mlcblog

            The Word of God says we must believe and confess Jesus as God to have eternal salvation. John 3:16

            Read it for yourself. However, as you read, know that this is a scriptural book. Logic is not a lot of help when exploring spiritual matters.

          • Advocatus

            mlcblog, if logic is of no help in such spiritual matters as you say, why should I believe in the Gospels and not the Baghavad Gita?

    • azdebi

      I believe that we (believing souls) might do well to be reminded that the Bible tells us to be careful about issuing out judgments because God will judge us with the same degree that we judge others! AND, the Good Book also instructs us that, "God will have mercy upon whom He will". Any way you look at it, death is a serious matter and one that we will ALL face someday.

  • http://apollospaeks.blogtownhall.com/ ApolloSpeaks

    CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS IN THE AFTERLIFE

    How I wish I was there in the spiritual realm to see Chris Hitchens' astonishment that his mind had survived his untimely death; that he is very much alive in the spiritual state that he'd mocked all his life as a primitive fiction of "evil religion;" that there's more to existence than flesh. Is he disappointed to know that he was wrong for so long, that his crude, inexorable materialism was a hoax? Does he unhappily feel cheated that he wasn't obliterated, dissolved into nothingness like he rigidly thought? Is he saddened to know that religion was right, that he's an undying, immortal, imperishable soul? Is he cursing his state craving nihilism instead which he believed was his fate in the end? How's he handling the truth that God exists, and that he owes his great mind and existence to Him? Hitchens' soul must be in intellectual turmoil as his life of unbelief ill-prepared him for death. And so must it be for all atheistic materialists who'll have the truth thrust upon them in the end.

    • Fray222

      If Horowitz is reading any of these comments, I can imagine how dispirited he must be at the caliber of his fan base. Gloating about how Hitchens is being proven wrong in some etheral realm, is this how you respond to the death of one of the great speakers and writers of our generation?

      • StephenD

        "Gloating about how Hitchens…"

        What I said was:

        " I wouldn't wish that on anyone."

        If that is gloating to you…you have a problem.

        I'm sorry for David's experience of loss. He has a chance. I hope, as another post said, that his friend made his peace with G_d before he breathed his last. I hope the same for you.

        • Fray222

          I was responding to the unpleasantness that Apollo just subjected us to.
          You were a bit better about it, but so what? Any God that would send a man like Hitchens to hell, isn't one worthy of worship or praise.
          Read Apollo's comment again, I know he doesn't speak for all Christians, but he does speak to something ugly and sinister within the Christian religion. Until you start cleaning house Christianity is not something I wish to be a part of.

          • Northanhymbre Heathen

            "Any God that would send a man like Hitchens to hell, isn't one worthy of worship or praise. "

            Agreed absolutely! I was really sad to hear the news of this man's passing this morning – hopefully being in the afterlife won't dull his ascerbic wit any, and he continues to inspire courage and freedom of conscience and speech in us mortals from the "other side" (I doubt he'll waste much time worrying that he was wrong about its non-existence, according to those who've had near death experiences, belief or unbelief matters less than the contents of the heart, and Christopher's was big – very bold – but big all the same …)

            I wrote a blog post about him – http://northhymbrischeathen.wordpress.com/2011/12

          • http://www.fullcirclethinker.com Dave

            God doesn't send anyone to hell. It is a choice made by the individual. To reject His offer of Heaven initiates His willingness to give them what they request. And, since they refused the free gift of eternal life through His Son, they are in effect saying that they are opting for the only other choice made available.

          • http://apollospaeks.blogtownhall.com/ ApolloSpeaks

            Where do I say that Hitchens is in hell? If Hitchens has an immortal soul (a belief common to many religions and spiritual philosophies which Hitchens denied in life) then he is realizing that truth in death, and it's annihilating his materialism. At worse he's in a state of temporary confusion and mental turmoil which will pass once he adjusts to his incorporeal existence.

        • Advocatus

          Your benighted self-righteousness is sickening, and so is that of ApolloSpeaks, no offence meant. The same fate awaits you both as does the rest of us after death; namely, oblivion. Now, try to deal with it.

          • StephenD

            Advocatus,
            I should accept what you say…on faith in you? I am to believe you instead of the Psalm because you have searched the universe and know there is no G_d before you. At least, David is humble enough to say he is agnostic; a doubter. He doesn't claim to know as fact what you do. I believe by a thin thread of weak faith. But it is holding up the world as far as I can tell. I just can't give that up for what you offer as fact.

          • Advocatus

            StephenD, you make one category mistake after another. Who says you should believe in "me"? The whole point of empiricism is that you seek to understand the world through testable theories and experiments, not through some namby-pamby fairytales handed down from the Bronze Age. Now in every area of life you go by empirical evidence, do you not? You trust medicine when you need treatment because of the rigorous research that went into it etc…. But when it comes to the issue of religion and spirituality, you prefer to take things on faith. Seeing as you have only your "faith," how can you be certain that a Muslim or a Buddhist or Hindu or Animist who also has his "faith" in a completely different set of beliefs is wrong while you are right that Christianity is the road to salvation? Is it just something you "feel" or "know" to be true?

          • Northanhymbre Heathen

            "The same fate awaits you both as does the rest of us after death; namely, oblivion. Now, try to deal with it."

            How about you try to deal with the fact that you DON'T KNOW! I believe in an afterlife because I've seen it and felt it for many years now, though of course I'm not in the game of forcing other people to believe me on this – it is my own experience, and I don't blame anyone for maintaining a healthy scepticism. Just because someone is an unbeliever does not automatically lead me to dismiss that person's ideas or character, or diminish their standing in my eyes any the less.

            (I should add here that I believe that the divine probably invented atheism/scepticism as a deliberate ploy to stop the rest of humanity from flying off into la-la land. Whilst I don't hold to the doctrine myself, it is a very enlightening study and effective tool against religious lunacy.)

          • Advocatus

            Northanhymbre Heathen, fine. You are right there is no knowing 100 percent what happens after death. Meanwhile, all the evidence points in the direction that consciousness is a manifestation not of an eternal soul but of mere brain functions, wonderful though they are. Now, assume I were to claim that the Universe was created by a pink unicorn in a top hat who lives 3 billion lightyears away in an exact replica of the Kong Kong Disneyland. Now prove me wrong.

          • Northanhymbre Heathen

            But you're not going to claim that though are you, just as i wouldn't, because I'm not stupid! I'd defend evolution and the scientific method in general as much as any atheist – I'm not seeking "converts" or to impose my spiritual beliefs on anybody on pain of some imaginary eternal damnation or anything. My spiritual beliefs fall into the realm of subjective experience (which just happen to be corroborated by a lot of other people), so in that sense I'm not trying to make any sort of scientific, provable claim.

      • http://apollospaeks.blogtownhall.com/ ApolloSpeaks

        Great speaker and writer yes. But an anti-religious extremist who is not above criticism, and is being cured, I believe, of his intellectual errors as I write.

        • tarleton

          yaaaawn …you've been making bogus predictions for years …..why should we take you seriously now ?…I remember you predicting that obama would never be elected ….hahaha

          • http://apollospaeks.blogtownhall.com/ ApolloSpeaks

            Good thing I was wrong. McCain would have been a disaster with Obama returing to beat him in 2012. Obama was the luckless winner of the 2008 election. McCain the lucky loser.

          • tarleton

            well if you were wrong then , why should we believe any of your predictions ?

    • 11bravo

      "Is he disappointed to know that he was wrong for so long," No, not at all disappointed. In fact he has gotten over on all of it and you. He did not follow anything you believe in yet ends up in the same place!! Religion is magnificent!!

    • DouglasBender

      I imagine his first words upon his death were, "Jesus Christ!!"

  • mikeb

    Blecth.

  • Questions

    Like George Orwell and Arthur Koestler, Hitchens always held fellow progressives to a high standard, however much the latter displayed contempt toward their free societies. He was one of the few true men of honor that the Left has produced. And he was enormously entertaining to read. What good, indeed, is reading, if one is not having fun doing it? R.I.P.

    • TG Browning

      Heartily agree.

      Browning>>>

  • NotaBene

    No comment about his belief that Zionism is 'a stupid idea'?

    • Advocatus

      Here it is: You didn't have to agree with everything Hitchens believed to appreciate his candor and integrity in standing up for what he believed in. Unlike you, some of us can actually take arguments and facts on their own merits without having to resort to hero worship and overarching ideological bias.

      • NotaBene

        Thanks for the laugh. If there ever was more hysterical us vs. them view of the world than what is proclaimed every day on FPM I have never seen it.

        • mlcblog

          why don't you go read somewhere else then?

        • Advocatus

          NotaBene, all you need to do for a look at a more hysterical "us versus them" view is to look in the mirror. All you've been doing on this site is rail against "Zionists" without bothering even to marshall coherent arguments or deal with the facts as they are? Any irony there?

    • Northanhymbre Heathen

      One of the few things I disagreed with Hitchens on (apart from his atheism) was his criticism of Israel (particularly his attitude to the settlements). His attitude to Islamic terrorism and knowledge of Islamic history though were second to none, as was his slating of other leftists for their namby-pamby idiocy on the whole thing. His speeches on Iraq and Afghanistan, for example, were masterful (also on Iran). That the Anti-war movement hated him was reason enough in itself for me to have respect for the guy!

      • NotaBene

        'agree with everything'? Zionism is the sine qua non of this whole website. I guess this just shows that Horowitz hates Muslims more than he love sisrael

        • mlcblog

          take a hike

        • Advocatus

          Not really, NotaBene. Frontpage is a conservative website, one of whose main threats is to defend Israel, yes, but it is hardly the only subject matter on it. If "Horowitz hates Muslims," does that mean you hate Jews?

  • Andrea Hall

    I once "told" him that if I could choose one person to spend the rest of my life with on a desert isle it would be him.

    I'd bring the whisky.

    He didn't respond.

    Guess it's too late.

    • Advocatus

      I'll go with you ;-)

    • Larry

      You should have offered to bring the G&T, that would have got his attention.

  • mrbean

    A song for Christopher even though he was an atheist.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIN8MmMloZE&fe

    • mlcblog

      that is really not funny in this setting

      It is not a time for laughing when some are grieving.

  • daninkansas

    The Prince is dead. He lived not long.
    But not short either. Now the angels have their hands full. The good ones. I can't imagine it otherwise.

    • mlcblog

      You can read about it in the Bible, Old and New Testaments. Then you will know and can choose.

    • kafirman

      "Every man dies, not every man really lives" (from BraveHeart). Christopher never lived. "He who does not have the son of God, does not have The Life" (1 Jn. 5:13).

  • Angela

    a flamboyant and very bright man – try to follow in his footsteps imo

  • LindaRivera

    Article: "He was able to do so in part because of his final campaign against God, which occupied the main part of his dying days."

    How scary to spend your last months and days campaigning against God. The God who cares so much and loves so much. Mr. Horowitz says he understands Christopher's campaign against God. Sometimes people are angry; extremely angry at God because of terrible things that happened to them, or terrible things that happened to their people – six million innocent Jews murdered by Hitler and Hitler's God-hating monsters.

    God understands the anger and the terrible pain. It will be different one day! A future where the evil ones will never again hurt another human being! God promised in the Bible and God keeps ALL of His promises.

    Hell is being eternally separated from God. Nothing is more terrible than that. Nothing.
    God is everything good in this universe and in this world. Everything.

    • tarleton

      well Horowitz is in hell too , according to you HAHA

      6 million jews murdered by ''god hating nazis''….true ,but they were aided and abetted by millions of christian germans with a long history of anti semitism going back to martin luther….''the jews are our misfortune ''

      • LindaRivera

        What? I never said ANY such thing about Mr. Horowitz!

        And as for Martin Luther who lived from 1483-1546, he will answer to God for his evil statements of incitement to hate and violence against the Jewish people. And as for the Jewish people, that includes Jesus, the Jew.

      • WilliamJamesWard

        Anyone who partakes in the murder of people is not a Christian and fail
        the test of their faith if they ever had any…….Political leaders, fops calling
        themselves rulers and by might I might add used religion as a tool for
        control. The truly faithful had a bad time getting away from evil and
        keeping away. Today when we should be celebrating a safer, saner
        world with the benefits of generations of progress we see what, chaos,
        malicious envy and rotten characters being praised as good. It is useless
        to go on but try Lee Strobel's "The Case For a Creator" and try not being
        so damn sure of yourself………………………….William

        • tarleton

          that's right , any religious fanatics who persecuted jews OR burned heretics , Or launched crusades weren't really christians anyway …NOT LIKE US REAL CHRISTIANS

          more silly puerile comments from the ''real christians ''

          • WilliamJamesWard

            As you were not at any of the historical events and not privy to the
            knowledge of who was fighting for what and just how intricate the
            problems of the day were I think you should stop with the broad
            brush attacks on Christians. The people of those days had their
            reasons, right or wrong you nor I can know. Try going deeper into
            what history reveals as to the power hungry and evil rulers who
            passed off their falsehoods and fight for gain in self damning acts.
            The entire history of man is written in blood and is mostly done by
            evil people, instigated by evil people and not one person with innocent
            blood on their hands is a Christian. You may proffer silly comments
            all day long but after you have shown your bigotry you will probably
            continue to be and ignorant dolt……..again……….Merry Christmas
            William

          • tarleton

            there no propaganda like religious propaganda..no denial quite like religious denial ….''true believers '' ,wether secular or religious are pathological liars in defence of their beliefs

  • 080

    What was on his lung was on his tongue always within the bounds of respectability. That's somethding as rare as unicorns..

  • Stephen_Brady

    The last thing that I will do is judge anyone, no matter what they have said in public. That is God's business, not mine.

    Why does anyone think there are 25 thousand denominations in the Christian faith alone? We're so busy searching for the "what" … the latest doctrine, lifestyle choice, whatever … or accusing anyone who believes in a "what" that we don't, we have lost sight of the "Who".

    The philosopher and the theologian inside of me wants to go onto the attack against Christopher, and condemn him to hell. But that's the "what" speaking in me. The "Who" that I love and serve commands mercy.

    Accordingly, I will give Mr. Hitchens the benefit of the doubt, and hope that he found a relationship with the Who. I believe that his argument, in life, was with the What, anyway …

    • Jim_C

      Hitchens was a champion of the downtrodden, the oppressed, and the disenfranchised–a brave and unflinching advocate with a keen sense of justice.

      In this, he is not too different from the Who of Whom you speak.

    • tarleton

      why is there 25 thousand denominations if ''it's the truth''….you folks cannot agree with each other …it's hardly surprising that you would disagree with infidels …if you ''true believers'' could get the facts straight among yourselves you MAY have a better chance of convincing non believers about your ''truth ''

      • Stephen_Brady

        Institutions, doctrines, rituals, etc. and ad infinitum …

        These are the things that I call the "What". Please note that it is the What that divides us. But in spite of these things, the Who unites us. Almost all denominations agree on the Who … the Person of Jesus Christ, the Messiah, the Son of God, whose birth we celebrate on the 25th of this month.

        A ritual or an organization is not the Who … it is not the Truth. The Truth is Jesus Christ. The What is influenced by culture, language … whatever.

        Tarleton, to find the Who, you've got to get past the What.

        • WilliamJamesWard

          I counted 24,998 1/2 but that is irrelevant. The Who is true and the prupose
          is to bring man out of the pit of self indulgent evil. I find it hard to abide
          the broad brushing of the Christian faith by historically inaccurate portrayals
          actualized by secular and anti-Christian bigotry. It is said that the road is
          narrow and few there are that make it. The Scriptures being taken out of
          the public education has destroyed the thinking and scholastic ability of
          most people. Daniel Webster predicted the days we live in at the rate of
          moral and ethical decline absenting the Bible in Schools and so it is we
          live in a World lacking everything we need for a good life, hopefully the
          afterlife in which I am convinced in and believe true will be there for more
          as the verities of Mercy & Grace are powerful indeed………..Willliam

          • Stephen_Brady

            I agree wholeheartedly with both of your posts in this thread, today, William.

        • tarleton

          REligious people like you who ''know '' the truth are the problem …you don't think you know the truth , or suspect that you know the truth , or even intuit the truth ….YOU KNOW THE TRUTH and that certainty is the problem as it's always the ''true believers '' who are the worst fanatics ….I can well understand how you true believers could fight religious wars and destroy the heretics like the french huguenots…..YOU KNOW THE TRUTH ……GOD WILLS IT

          Anyone with a basic knowledge of 16th C Europe knows what christian fanatics are capable of …..GOD TOLD ME TO DO IT !

          • WilliamJamesWard

            Here you go deflecting what you wish to push on Christian believers
            of the Scriptures to some event in the 16th Century, were you there,
            I surely was not and would never take part in the murder of anyone for
            believing differently from myself. It is a live and learn world and here
            you are free to have your own belief and ascribe to yourself what you
            want for truth, attacking my belief is narrow and very revealing. I am
            not religious but ascribe to faith in the Scriptures as the Word of God.
            You are as free as I to accept or reject and I respect that but do not
            respect criticisms that are directed at Christianity as defined in the
            directives of Christ, or faith in the God of Abraham, Isaiah & Jacob.
            Merry Christmas……………………………………………..William

          • tarleton

            I rest my case

          • WilliamJamesWard

            Rant and blather do not a case make…………………….William

          • Stephen_Brady

            I haven't killed a non-believer in some time. Perhaps I should dust off my Zweihander and go looking for some infidels.

            Your problem is that you don't recoghnize the FACT that the Christian faith has matured beyond thinking that our will is God's Will. Indeed, you probably don't WANT to recognize this fact, because it doesn't fit into your worldview.

            I don't know if you're an atheist, or not. But what you have said about "true believers" and the "truth" could be self-referential. Because you don't believe, it must be true. Can't you see that you have merely replaced the 16th Century view of God's Will with your own?

            Merry Christmas!

      • PattyAnd

        Almost all Christian denominations share common beliefs.
         1. God is faithful
         2. Jesus is real
         3. The Bible is true, even if not literally true. 
          There us an ordered, rather than a random universe. 
          We Christians, as well as Jews,  believe in one God, God the Father, Creator of Heaven and Earth, of all things seen and unseen.  
          Jews believe in 1. and 3. above. 
          How can you not believe in God? The evidence is everywhere; but Faith is in the heart, not the intellect. 
          As the Christian mystical poet Christina Rossetti wrote:
        Who Has Seen the Wind?

        Who has seen the wind?
        Neither I nor you:
        But when the leaves hang trembling,
        The wind is passing through.

        Who has seen the wind?
        Neither you nor I:
        But when the trees bow down their heads,
        The wind is passing by.

  • Chezwick_Mac

    David's brief eulogy was eloquent and compassionate…and at the same time honest. We've come to expect as much.

    For me, it was Hitch's fawning eulogy for Edward Said that turned me against the man. Whatever he was as an individual, Said's influence on academe has been pernicious and lasting. Hitch's inability to recognize as much was telling.

    • Ed

      He criticized Said strongly.

  • mrbean

    Proximo had it right: "Ultimately we are all dead men."

    • WilliamJamesWard

      Let's just hold up on that now, I have always thought I was to pretty to die
      and as the fleeting fleets I may change my mind but leave the ultimate
      up to the approximate or the maybe if at all, maybe, perhaps……..William

  • Glennd1

    Why did you bother, Horowitz? If you had nothing good to say, then today was the day to keep your mouth shut. What a low-class jerk you are. At least Hitchens had the integrity to not be a partisan when his fellows went adrift, whereas you, unlike many Jews and Israelis, refuse to take in all the new information about Israel's first years as a nation and how the Zionists violently expelled 650,000 Arab Muslims who lived in Palestine from their homes on the newly minted Israel. So who's morally inconsistent? Hitchens went after evil wherever he saw it, without apology, and accordingly, he was a much better and more important man then you will ever be. For a real memorial see this article http://libertariancomment.com/farewell-christophe

    • mlcblog

      dear glennd1

      I am sorry you did not have the decency to refrain from your comments. In times of grief, I think we need to allow each other their own expressions.

      Faulting Mr. H may make you feel better but probably not.

      • Advocatus

        Glennd1, and the Arabs violently expelled some 800,000 Jews from across North Africa and the Middle East. And your point is?

      • Glennd1

        Go pound sand – I have no obligation to Horowitz, the loss clearly is not his personally as he had very little good to say about an immensely talented, prolific. brilliant and engaging man. He had his defects of character no doubt, but the day of the man's death is by no means the polite time to focus on them – he wasn't an axe murderer, his character defects were his own, there was absolutely no reason for Horowitz to be so petty, so mean, so small. That you can't see how classless this is of Horowitz is a testament to your own boorish small-mindedness.

    • DavidJ

      Glennd1 take a seat and shut up.

      • Glennd1

        It's a public forum – I will not shut up. Horowitz went way over the line of decency here for no good reason at all. How 'bout we list all Horowitz's bad attributes on the day of his death? Would that seem what a civil person would do? Your right-wingers don't get it, you've become just as partisan, just as vicious, just as unciivl as the left. It's disgusting.

    • Ron Carnine

      I'm sorry my friend but you haven't researched your history very well. Arabs were rarely expelled from Israel, most left on their own thinking that all their Arab armies could defeat the Israelis quickly and completely. It didn't happen and under the rules of war, since they were attacked any conquered land belongs to them. The Arabs that did stay, became citizens of the new Israel with all the rights of any citizen. Most of the land that Israel received was purchased and was barren. It was the Israelis that "made the desert blossom". There are no "Palestinians" only conquering Arabs that missed their best chance to have their own nation instead of being part of transjordan, which didn't help at all. If the "Palestinians" really were a "nation" why didn't the other Arabs carve out a territory for them, instead of forcing them to live for decades as refugee's? You are blaming the wrong people and parroting the same old misinformation that has been around since the beginning.

      • Glennd1

        You do realize that the entire narrative you lay out here so childishly has been completely disproved by scholars over the past 30 yrs, yes? Just for you I'll quote Benny Morris, an Israeli, Jewish, Zionist and world renowned historian on what happened. I'm sure a dullard like you doesn't even know who he is. You should also know that your beliefs aren't subscribed to by many Israelis – that in and alone should give you pause.

        T Rami al interviewed Morris for the newspaper Yediot Ahronot in December 1994.
        Morris: As one who received his education in Israel, I thought I knew that the Arabs had ‘run away.’ But I knew nothing else. The Jewish generations of 1948, however, knew the truth and deliberately misrepresented it. They knew there were plenty of mass deportations, massacres and rapes…The soldiers and the officials knew, but they suppressed what they knew and were deliberately disseminating lies.”

        Benny Morris also said this:
        “Israelis like to tell the world, that they are running an ‘enlightened’ or ‘benign’ occupation, qualitatively different from other military occupations the world has seen. The truth was radically different. Like all occupations, Israel’s was founded on brute force, repression and fear, collaboration and treachery, beatings and torture chambers, and daily intimidation, humiliation and manipulation.” Israeli historian, Benny Morris, “Righteous Victims.”

        • PattyAnd

          Why don’t you take your anti-Israel anti-Zionist anti-Semitism elsewhere. Hitchens was a Jew, and in the process of coming to terms with that. His “friendship” with Edward Said, an anti-Semitic propagandist for Islamo-fascists is incomprehensible.

          ISRAEL Myth v Fact 
          AS THE OLD SAYING GOES, JUST THE FACTS:

          MYTH:

          “The land of Israel is really the land of Palestine.”

          FACT:

          The term “Palestine” is believed to be derived from the Philistines, an Aegean people who, in the 12th Century BC, settled along the Mediterranean coastal plain of what is now Israel and the Gaza Strip. In the second century AD, after crushing the last Jewish revolt, the Romans first applied the name Palaestina to Judea (the southern portion of what is now called the West Bank) in an attempt to minimize Jewish identification with the land of Israel. The Arabic word Filastin is derived from Latin. There is no language known as Palestinian. There is no distinct Palestinian culture. There has never been a land known as Palestine governed by Palestinians. Palestinians are Arabs, indistinguishable from Jordanians (another recent invention), Syrians, Lebanese, Iraqis, etc.

          MYTH:

          “The Jews have no historic claim to Israel.”

          FACT:

          Only one group of people have continuously lived in Israel for the past 3,700 years – the Jews. Jerusalem, in particular, has had a Jewish majority since the 1840s, 40 years prior to the beginnings of Zionism. Seventy-five percent of the land in east Jerusalem, which the press calls “historically Arab east Jerusalem,” has been owned by Jews since 1947. The nations that inhabited the land prior to the Jews are no longer in existence, for they have been absorbed into various other peoples throughout the millennia. The Arabs of Israel only came to the land in 632AD with the Muslim invasion.

          MYTH:

          “The creation of the state of Israel in 1948 changed political and border arrangements between independent states that had existed for centuries.”

          FACT:

          The boundaries of most Middle East countries were arbitrarily fixed by the Western powers after Turkey was defeated in World War I and the French and British mandates were set up. The areas allotted to Israel under the UN Partition Plan had all been under the control of the Ottomans, who had ruled Palestine from 1517 until 1917. When Turkey was defeated in World War I, the French took over the area now known as Lebanon and Syria. The British assumed control of Palestine and Iraq. In 1926, the borders were redrawn and Lebanon was separated from Syria. Britain installed the Emir Faisal, who had been deposed by the French in Syria, as ruler of the new kingdom of Iraq. In 1922, the British created the emirate of Transjordan, which incorporated all of Palestine east of the Jordan River. This was done so that the Emir Abdullah, whose family had been defeated in tribal warfare in the Arabian peninsula, would have a kingdom to rule. None of the countries that border Israel became independent until this century. Many other Arab nations became independent after Israel.

          MYTH:

          “Israel violates the human rights of the Palestinian Arabs.”

          FACT:

          The facts are different. Israel granted full citizenship to all of the Palestinian Arabs who fell within its borders after the War of Independence. Arabic is an official language in Israel. Israel remains to this day one of the few countries in the Middle East where Arabs can legitimately vote–and it is the only one where women can vote.

          MYTH:

          “The West Bank is part of Jordan.”

          FACT:

          The West Bank was never legally part of Jordan. Under the UN’s 1947 Partition Plan–which the Jews accepted and the Arabs rejected–it was to have been part of an independent Arab state in western Palestine. But the Jordanian army invaded and occupied it during the 1948 war. In 1950, Jordan annexed the West Bank. Only two governments–Great Britain and Pakistan–formally recognized the Jordanian takeover. The rest of the world, including the United States, never did. During the 1950-1967 period of its occupation, Jordan permitted terrorists to launch raids into Israel. Amman lost the West Bank after the Jordanian army entered the 1967 war.

          MYTH:

          “Jerusalem is Islam’s third most holy city.”

          FACT:

          Muslims try to connect Jerusalem to Islam by using a vague passage in the Koran, the seventeenth Sura, entitled “The Night Journey.” It relates that in a dream or a vision, Mohammed was carried by night “from the sacred temple to the temple that is most remote, whose precinct we have blessed, that we might show him our signs. …” In the seventh century, some Muslims identified the two temples mentioned in this verse as being in Mecca and Jerusalem. And that’s as close as Islam’s connection with Jerusalem gets–myth, fantasy, wishful thinking. Meanwhile, Jews can trace their roots in Jerusalem back to the days of Abraham.

          MYTH:

          “The Temple Mount has always been a Muslim holy place and Judaism has no connection to the site.”

          FACT:

          The area of Solomon’s Stables is believed to date as far back as the construction of Solomon’s Temple. According to Josephus, it was in existence and was used as a place of refuge by the Jews at the time of the conquest of Jerusalem by Titus in the year 70 A.D. More authoritatively, the Koran–the holy book of Islam–describes Solomon’s construction of the First Temple (34:13) and recounts the destruction of the First and Second Temples (17:7). The Jewish connection to the Temple Mount dates back more than 3,000 years and is rooted in tradition and history. When Abraham bound his son, Isaac, upon an altar as a sacrifice to God, he did so atop Mount Moriah, today’s Temple Mount.

          MYTH:

          “Under Israeli rule, religious freedom has been curbed in Jerusalem.”

          FACT:

          After the 1967 war, Israel abolished all the discriminatory laws promulgated by Jordan and adopted its own tough standard for safeguarding access to religious shrines. “Whoever does anything that is likely to violate the freedom of access of the members of the various religions to the places sacred to them,” Israeli law stipulates, “is liable to imprisonment for a term of five years.” Israel also entrusted administration of the holy places to their respective religious authorities. Thus, for example, the Muslim Waqf has responsibility for the mosques on the Temple Mount.
          ++++++++++++++++

          Genesis 12:1-3
          KJV

           1 Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father’s house, unto a land that I will shew thee:

           2 And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing:

           3 And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.

    • jacob

      Mr. MODERATOR :

      There are rigth here posters as long or longer than mine but the only one told
      to shorten it is me…
      How about f….ng off …or blackballing me and getting it over once and for all.???????

      • Stephen_Brady

        First, leave off the language that will "offend" a machine, the filter at the website.

        Second, if you have a lot that you wish to say, do one of two things:

        1- Split your post into several segments, or

        2- Write the first part of your post, and then, edit. I used to have the same problem as you, until I learned to edit a post already written.

        Is there something that the moderators should blackball you for?

    • Morty62

      Did we read the same article? I found Horowitz's piece to be both gracious and moving. Who wants to read some cloying, phonied-up remembrance? David related the Hitchens he knew, which is all that can be asked of a man trying to impart the significance of the loss of a friend.

      • Glennd1

        So you think that was an appropriate way to memorialize him? Okay, but I don't. I thought the shots he took at Hitch – THE DAY AFTER HIS DEATH WHEN THE TEARS AREN'T EVEN DRY – were low blows. And he made several of them. The overall tone was not salutory nor appropriate to the death of a man who is universally recognized globally as a 'man of idea's', a literary genius, a legendary debater and perhaps one of the best 'polemicists' of our time. There were plenty of aspects of Hitch to compliment, and on the event of his death, civil, polite and respectful people focus on those better aspects. Horowitz showed no such deference or respect and I called him on it. Is that really so hard for you to understand?

        How about this? On the day of your death, let's talk about how you had it coming and how riddled with conflicts and moral equivalence, would you like that? Please, stop flacking for Horowitz. His commentary stands on its own as the lowly act of a cur. Nothing you say changes that one iota.

  • Truth_Fairy

    It's ironic that Mr. Hitchens died near the time we celebrate Christ's birth… His death gives us a vital opportunity to contemplate eternity and where we'll spend it. This life is but a vapor; heaven and hell are forever. The Jews' survival, despite pogroms, the Holocaust and continual attacks are testament to God's existence. God is a Spirit. He dictated the Bible through men so we could know Him and what He expects of us. He doesn't "send" people to hell; people choose to go there. Since we're totally incapable of obeying the Ten Commandments perfectly, and there can be no sin in heaven because God is holy, He sent His only Son to die for our sins in order to provide the only possible sinless substitutionary sacrifice. We have but to accept the free gift of salvation. All the denominations think

    • Glennd1

      Who's this guy Christ you are talking about? Has he got a Youtube channel? Is he a world renowned intellect, polemicist, writer and litarary critic who followed his morals and conscience to the places is led him without regard to partisanship or ideological constraints? Take your sanctimonious nonsense and shove up your arse, you grotesque, low-class moron.

      • Carbondioxide

        Scripture says that when we, in this case, Truth Fairy, speak of the gospel it is by the power of the God's Holy Spirit. Do you intend to sit in judgment of the Godhead?
        You are right about Jesus in this sense, that he did not live a Frank Sinatra "I Did it My Way" life. He told people that he did exactly what his Father commanded. He was born humbly and did not die in comfort, but rose from the dead three days later. I'll put my faith in the saving power of Christ's sacrifice over private morality and conscience anyday. Merry Christmas to you and yours.

  • Truth_Fairy

    salvation can be earned by man's works and efforts; if that was true, Jesus wouldn't have had to die. The Bible says clearly salvation is by grace, or in other words, it's free! Jesus is the Passover Lamb. We have a choice; either stand before God on Judgment Day and try to argue with Him that we're "good enough" to get into heaven, or follow His directions and ask Jesus to save us from hell so He can stand in our place on Judgment Day so God will then see Christ's righteousness rather than our sinfulness. So simple, so awesome. The hard part is people are too proud to admit they're sinners. Since so many of us were praying for Mr. Hitchens' salvation, I'm hoping that at the last minute he repented and was ushered into heaven like the thief on the cross. I pray that everyone who reads this knows that Jesus was not a liar, and believes Him when He said, "I am the way, the truth and life; no one comes to the Father except through Me."

    • mlcblog

      That is incorrect. Salvation is a gift of God to the believer. That is, if you are talking about eternal life, salvation from death, disease, poverty. Read it. Study. Jesus was victorious over all this. He made the way for the Father to send our best friend, the Holy Spirit.

      Spiritual salvation cannot be earned. I am wondering if this was a typo and you meant to say cannot be earned. A crucial error. Let's proof read. It is an important message.

    • WilliamJamesWard

      "All the denominations believe salvation can be earned by man's works and
      efforts" ? I am unaware of that though there is much today that is drifting from
      the true Gospels, my denomination does not believe in works but surely
      good works follow those who believe……………………………………..Williami

      • PattyAnd

        Most Protestants believe in Salvation by Grace alone, not by good works, but by Faith. One can’t earn one’s Salvation or pay the wages of sin with money ir good works. That is why Martin Luther nailed the 95 Theses to the church door at Wittenberg.
        Read a good book on The Reformation.

    • Glennd1

      How dare you presume to say such a thing when Hitch went to great lengths to assert he had no such impulse even when death became a certainty.

  • Frank

    If he's still aware, he's probably laughing his head off at the joke…

    • mlcblog

      I don't think he's doing a lot of laughing if he indeed went down to scheol.

  • DBH

    Tim Keller's message…. Hell: Isn't the God of Christianity an angry Judge? seems appropriate here… http://sermons2.redeemer.com/sites/sermons2.redee

  • LindaRivera

    To Glendd1:

    PLO Leader: "THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE DOES NOT EXIST"

    March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper "Trouw" published an interview with Palestine Liberation Organization executive committee member Zahir Muhsein:

    "The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism."

    • Al Blue

      Nice try in the cause of Zionist Holocaust Denial. Arabs have lived in Palestine as a majority until 1948 for thousands of years. There was never a Irish State until 1921 so that means that there were no Irish people for thousands of years ?
      See The Invention Of The Jewish People by Tel Aviv University scholar Shlomo Sand.

      • NotaBene

        Nationalism as an idea didn't emerge for anybody until about the 1850s, and part of nationalism is myth-making to turn your disparate history into a coherent storyline.

        I am not a libertarian but I do agree with them about one thing: it is as individuals that we get our rights, first and foremost. Everything else comes later.

  • Amused

    I am simply "AMUSED " at this discussion .It is indeed a good corrollary for our present state of affairs …..oh well .

    BUT HAVING SAOID THAT – I HAVE A RATHER LARGE BONE TO PICK WITH YOU -MR.Glendd1 , for having the unmitigated gall to spit out a baldfaced lie . When Israel was recognized as a State and Five neighboring Arab/muslim countries immediately declared war on her , their call went out to all arabs living in Israel to LEAVE IMMEDIATELY , lest they be caught up in the coming slaughter of the Jews and the utter destruction of the new State .With that approximately 350,000 did in fact leave OF THEIR OWN VOLITION and NOT VIOLENTLY FORCED OUT ,as YOU HAVE LIED ABOUT Glendd1 .Israel in fact made it clear that any and all were invited to participate in the newly formed State . YOU LIE Glendd1 .Of these 350,000 , most went to Jordan ,and to Lebanon where they were PUT in REFUGEE Camps , prohibited working , owning property , or melding in with those societies . Most fully intended to return after the destruction was completed -which never happened, and they were left to rot in thoae camps and be eternal poster boys for the "nakba " .

    • LindaRivera

      Amused,
      Thank you for your excellent comments. Rabidly anti Israel, anti Jew, world leaders and media know the truth but they choose to DECEIVE, LIE and propagandize for colonizing, totalitarian Islam.

  • Amused

    Over the decades since , their descendents have grown to about 3 million who in1967b INVENTED THE DESCRIPTOR -"Palestinians ".They became disruptive in Jordan ,and King Hussrin killed 10,000 of them , thus the term,and eventual group of terrorists called " Black September ". In Lebanon those in the camps caused a longlasting and bloody civil war in that country , which opened gthe door for Syrian hegemony in Lebanon which eventually led to TWO wars with Israel . And please do not attempt to counter with Sabra and Shatilla , while it was Sharon who allowed Christian Phalangists into those camps , the result was revenge on the part of the Phalangists for the murders of its leaders and members by the palestinians . So in regards to the palestinians , YES they did not exist until that name was invented in '67 , and Hitchens , just like you Glendd1, had his head up his arse regarding the truth of the matter . If Hitchens had been the true moralist ,he thought himself to be , and as Horowitz posthumously claims him to have been , he would have seen that there is in fact NO MORAL EQUIVALENCE betwen palestinians , their tactics and their cause and Israel .

  • Amused

    And BTW , the "truth " as some of you so-called and self described atheists allege , is no better or worse than the illusion of the so called religionists , for each and every man , when he puts his head down on his pillow at night , utterly alone with his thoughts and beliefs will not be persuaded or disuaded of them , by any volume of literature , nor opinion , nor pontification ,by ANYONE . And NO ONE but that individual ,will ever know what they are or were .
    Ergo , this is where Hitchen's life went off the tracks on a "campaign " , which in the face of reality was completely useless and irrelevant .For this the man has my pity . Aide from that he was indeed a highly intelligent writer , whom I enjoyed reading and in fact had prayed for upon hearing about his diagnosis .

  • Lightning Jack

    It seems that Hitchens never could see humankind as any better or different from himself. He was the enfant terrible, a man who had journeyed everywhere but found no resting place. He considered all religions as poisonous, and placed almost all of recorded history's human suffering and misery at their door step.

    He did not believe in live and let live, and detested anyone religious as ignorant , weak, or superstitious using their faith as crutch to support the weakness and fallibility of human nature. His condemnation of religion in general was personal and poisonous, rationalized by junk history, junk scholarship and junk apostasy.

    It seems that, to be Christopher Hitchens meant philosophically playing Russian roulette (with immortality) with all the chambers loaded, enjoying the excitement of the game… betting that there is no G-d, and therefor no consequences. One can always act like the big player until the trigger is pulled. But …"What if?"

  • jacob

    According to HITCHENS and the thoughts of many, JEWS shold have turned atheists
    en masse, due to 2,000 years of persecutions and an HOLOCAUST who erased SIX
    MILLION, most of them innocents for the sole sin of having been born or descending
    from Jews and though….

    • Stephen_Brady

      God didn't kill these people. People killed these people. Perhaps, it's one of the costs of having been a Chosen People …

      … By the way, whether you agree with that or not, I once had a conversation with a Rabbi about this very subject, and he indicated that the Holocaust was both a sign of Chosenness, and one of its consequences.

      Interesting …

      • WilliamJamesWard

        What were the odds for a descendancy of man contingent on the children
        of Adam and Eve and their merits before the Creator. Cain and the offspring
        of the murderer and that which was lacking in him and inspired in him by
        outside help, vis a vis the serpent may be the true answer of todays problem.
        The fallen, man is a fallen race and there still exists all that is wrong with
        it and the interaction of man with man and God with man. How many have
        voiced the words "God help us" and as we linger when there are those who
        argue against Him, can we be suprized at His letting us have our own Hell.
        Not being a pessimist but things will get worse and intellictualism will not
        keep a body warm, a mind sane nor a soul safe from permanent harm but
        true faith if a loving God and His plan of Salvation chose by few will.
        William

  • Alex Kovnat

    It is remarkable that we, the non-politically correct and non-liberal, are inclusive enough to include someone like Christopher Hitchens.

    Without going into the pros and cons of the life of C.H., I just wish the medical community could do more about the monster of cancer.

  • Amused

    LOL….it is more a matter of the tendency to "straddle the line " than anything else . Indeed , truly a form of hypocrisy . It permeates the entire spectrum of social , ideological ,and politicasl thought .
    " What WE propose and want IS constitutional …what THEY propose and want IS NOT. Religiously , we LOVE that which is acceptable , and even though by christian standards , we are admonished not to hate , but to love our enemies .{btw that does not mean baring one's neck to an enemy ]
    I do not condemn or judge Hitchens , any freeman has the right to express openly his opinion , however on several key issues central to this blog and it's owner , Hitchen's views and opines are [were] totally anti-thetical .
    I find this very AMUSING .

  • Amused

    LOL…".we come not to bury Caesar but to praise him " ….lolololol……or vice-versa :)))

  • evy

    23And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. 24And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame. 25But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. 26And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence. 27Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house: 28For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment. 29Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. 30And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. 31And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead. from Luke 16 KJV

    • WilliamJamesWard

      Later to be proven by the only one ever to rise from the Dead, how pitifully
      few follow and believe in Him who had no sin as to who He was and why
      He came and for the benefit of all but received not a drop of water, just vinegar.
      William

      • tarleton

        you folks are out of your rational minds …sheesh …religion is a powerful and potent brew , and the folks who over indulge and become intoxicated are a danger to us all …Islam is just the high octane , violent version of it all

        • WilliamJamesWard

          You are spiritually dead and do not know it, you're not to bright as to what
          gives you safety and who brought about the freedoms you enjoy today.
          If you wish to expound on disbelief and identify with and athiestic self
          image, suit yourself. To impugn anyone with only your self indulgent
          bigotry is rather self serving and displays how limited your life is.
          Lee Strobel was like you and decided to investigate his disbelief but
          found more than he knew so read his book "The Case For A Creator".
          Find out something and get past yourself……………………William

  • Denver West

    Having enjoyed Christopher's expositions, I experienced both joy and and anger at some of his pretzel cognition. However, one thing that I always admired was his integrity and transparency.

  • Amused

    opinionated as those were . transparency , no doubts. integrity ? some of his opinions cast doubt on that one .

  • Al Blue

    Good riddance to bad rubbish ! See Alexander Cockburn's Farewell To C.H. in today's Counterpunch. I disagree with Cockburn 99.99% of the time but he's right on the money
    on this slimey liar for W's wars and hatchet jobs on Mother Theresa and Sid Blumenthal.
    Hitchens sucked up to power as he defamed old friends like Edward Said, Gore Vidal and Noam Chomsky.
    Like David Horowitz and Stephen Schwartz HitchyPoo was a lifelong Commie who jumped on the Neoconman bandwagon as writing Vanity Fair proved so much more profitable than The Nation. But as the Ayn Rand Institute noted in a book last year on
    neoconmanism you boys jumped on a hearse.
    As Chomsky noted Hitch went from being an anti-Semite to a self-hating Jew in one day.
    Except he never was a Jew as his brother noted. Hitch was a holocaust revisionist as Kissinger often noted.
    As an old Jew boy myself I plan on celebrating this lush's demise by bringing a bottle of the finest Black Label Scotch to his gravesite after first lubricating it through my kidneys.
    By the way, Ha'Aretz of Tel Aviv has a good interview with Debra Lipstadt wherein she castigates holocaust-mongering and Israel-pandering by the GOP Presidential candidate pygmies. It applies in spades to you, Davey boy.
    Living in a Bel Air mansion sure beats a Berkeley apartment, eh ?

    • tarleton

      let's hope some one can provide the same service for a creep like you …..where does Hitch become a ''Holocaust revisionist '' ? WHERE ?

      Al Blue ?…hmm…it's just a pity you aren't black n' blue

      • Al Blue

        He told Mark Weber of the Institute For Historical Review back in the late 90s that he was a holocaust revisionist as Weber reported at the time.
        Tarleton, As Gamal Abdel Nasser once said, may you choke on your anger.

        • tarleton

          what does that mean …historical revisionist ?…the number of victims in auschwitz was reported at 3 million 25 years ago and now ,according to the museum ,it is 1 million …is that revisionism ?

          • Al Blue

            The bogus figures were all Soviet inventions, first it was 9 million Jews killed at Auschwitz at the Stalinist Nuremberg Trials, then 4 million, then after the Berlin Wall came down it was 1 million, now it's 750,000, the true figure is probably exactly what the Germans documented 67,000.
            Ergo for the 'gas chambers,' the 'human lampshades,' Frank's 'Diary,' the 'human soap,' the 'Babi Yar' invention, the 'central extermination conspiracy,'
            'the Nazi plot to conquer the world' invdented by FDR, etc.
            The tale of 4,000 Einsatzgruppen 'exterminating 2 million Soviet Jews.'
            There are many books on this but if you can read just one it would be Debating The Holocaust by Thomas Dalton, Ph.D.

          • tarleton

            Hitch deserves credit for having a creep like you as an enemy ….BRAVO HITCH RIP !

  • LindaRivera

    To Al Blue:

    It was PLO leader, executive committee member Zahir Muhsein, who declared:

    "THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE DOES NOT EXIST"

    Are you calling the PLO leader a liar?

    • NotaBene

      Millions of Palestinians, scholars, historians, and 99% of the rest of the world: PALESTINIAN PEOPLE DO EXIST

      Are you calling the whole rest of the world liars, except for one pan-Arabist and a few right-wing Zionists like yourself?

      • LindaRivera

        Why are you telling me that? Tell that to the PLO leader. He is the one who made the statement.

        PLO Leader: "THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE DOES NOT EXIST"

        March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper "Trouw" published an interview with Palestine Liberation Organization executive committee member Zahir Muhsein:

        "The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism."

    • Al Blue

      YES and so do six million Palestinians. Assuming that quote is true and no one ever heard of this 'PLO leader.'

  • LindaRivera

    To Al Blue:

    Arabs first started calling themselves "Palestinians" in 1967. Global terrorist, Egyptian Arafat was the first leader of this new people.

    Before 1948, Jews were known as the Palestinians.
    The Jewish newspaper, the Jerusalem Post was called the Palestine Post. The Jewish-founded electric company was Palestine Electric. The Palestinian Symphony Orchestra was all Jewish. During World War II, the British army had a Palestinian Brigade made up entirely of Jewish volunteers.

    After Jews migrated to Palestine in significant numbers in the late 1800s and miraculously transformed desert and swamps into rich, agricultural land, Arabs came in large numbers from Arab countries for jobs from Jews.

    The fact that the overwhelming majority of Arabs resided only briefly in Palestine is attested to by a one-time special UN decree: that any Arab who had resided in Palestine for only two years before 1948, and then left, would be considered a refugee and so would his descendants!

    Throughout history, people were never regarded as refugees if they had resided in a country for only two years because they were clearly citizens of other countries!

    • NotaBene

      Hilarious. I suppose you've never read any of the literally thousands of history books, newspaper articles, memoirs, novels and polemics which predate 1967 and refer to them as 'Palestinians'?

      Our pal Ben-Gurion and hi friend, future Israel president Yitzhak Ben-Zvi, wrote a whole history of them. They concluded that the population of this country, never changed. Only small elites were sometimes deported. The towns and villages never moved, as their names prove. Canaanites became Israelites, then Jews and Samaritans, then Christian Byzantines. With the Arab conquest, they slowly adopted the religion of Islam and the Arabic Culture. These are today’s Palestinians.

    • Al Blue

      Not true. I met Palestinians in the 1930s who referred to themselves as Palestinian Arabs as did the rest of the world including Gandhi and the Brits.
      Jews never transformed squat. The orchards and vineyards of Arab Palestine were known in the 1800s, if not earlier.
      Jews in Palestine had a policy of not hiring Arab labor and boycotting Arab products so why would Arabs flock there to be discriminated against ?
      The UN decree you referred to never existed. The Arabs were the majority in Palestine for 2,000 years prior to 1948. The UN Partition was illegal because Palestinian Arabs owned 94% of the nonstate land in Palestine and were 67% of the population in 1948.
      Jews merely took the name Palestine but they were a tiny minority at that time.
      Even in 1948 they were only one-third of the population.
      Arafat was never Egyptian, his family had long, settled roots in Jerusalem and only were forced to Egypt after their expulsion in 1947-48.
      Stop your Nazi like Joan Peters falsification of history.
      Your last sentence is a nonsequitur because a US Jew can become a citizen immediately while Arabs there for thousands of years cannot.

      • NotaBene

        You're wasting your time. The whole core of Zionism is that history is created, not learned.

  • john in cheshire

    I know little about Mr C Hitchens, but I gather that he was a destroyer rather than a builder.

    • tarleton

      He was an Iconclast , and a good one

  • http://WWW.CAPTAINSBLOG.US ABUTOM

    HE FINALLY GOT HIS WISH. THE SMOKING SECTION. A GUY WITH CHRIST IN HIS NAME HAS ANCESTORS PRAYING HIM IN. http://WWW.SPIRITOFAMERICAPARTYRADIOSHOW.COM
    NOW ASK ME ABOUT STRAIGHT TO HELL BILL MAHER. GOD SAYS DO NOT PASS GO. DO NOT COLLECT 200 DOLLARS..TAKE A PAPAL CURSE WITH YOU. DATS A MA NAPOLI. DO THINK GEORGE CARLIN THE MARIJUANA SALESMAN IS WORKING BOILER NO 3 WITH TED KENNEDY?

  • NotaBene

    Hitchens did mention that he wished Jerusalem had been wiped out to spare us the plague of monotheism.

  • Amused

    yea blue , it was the Palestine post because that's what the Brits called it and even that was a general and regional designation. There never was a nation nor national identity attached to that land since the jews were driven out in 79 C.E. If anything official , it was part of the Ottoman Empire . However there was always a jewish presence/remnant since 79C.E. Arabs were latecomers wandering in and out of the land , who indeed were given the national identity out of purpose by their ideological leaders [terrorists/humilated arabs/would be destroyers of Israel.

  • tarleton

    TO DAVID HOROWITZ
    As a fellow englishman I know Hitchen's type well …child of privilege , sheltered , elitist upbringing …private boarding schools in france ….he was always playacting when it came to Marxism ..kinda acting out a child-like fantasy and was, in reality , about as far away from the steriotypical ''hard bitten Bolshevik'' as you could get
    Hitch was always a bit neurotic and foppish and probably had never been in a fist fight in his life and would have trurned into a real drama queen if he had ….the photo of him posing for the camera with the turned up collar and cigarette ,and trying his best to act like a ''man of the world '' is all the evidence we need …a photo can be worth a thousand words …R I P.. HITCH

    • Fray222

      Hitchens upbringing was lower middle class. If you care to actually learn something about the man, i'd start with his brother Peter's eulogy.

      "I am still baffled by how far we both came, in our different ways, from the small, quiet, shabby world of chilly, sombre rented houses and austere boarding schools, of battered and declining naval seaports, not specially cultured, not book-lined or literary or showy but plain, dutiful and unassuming, we took the courses we did."

      Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2075133

      As for physical courage, Hitchens was more than once nearly beaten to death by thugs of one stripe or another. You can begin by reading this,

      "But later that night, three of our "scoop" brigade–Jonathan Foreman, Michael Totten and Christopher Hitchens–got involved in a street brawl with some thugs of a Syria-loving skinhead party called the SNPN after Hitchens rather gallantly insulted their swastika flag. On our way to a meeting with Minister of State Nissib Lahoud, Hitchens showed me the gashed knuckles and bruises suffered during the punch up. The attackers had apparently come out of nowhere on posh Hamda Street, where they had gone to buy shoes. "I was on the ground," Hitchens said, "and getting it in the head." It was a miracle they didn't pull Kalashnikovs."
      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/18/christop

      That was the kind of man Hitchens was.

      • tarleton

        I read about him scribbling on a poster with a felt pen and then being attacked …it must have been the biggest shock of his life …Hitch was a man of many literary talents but still quite the poseur

  • Princeton67

    I fear that beneath Hitchen's erudite veneer was the heart of a sad, frightened, and angry little boy.

  • dex

    This is a limp, self-serving obit.

  • DeserveLiberty

    "He was able to do so in part because of his final campaign against God…" And, so it seems, we have a clue to the core objective of the Left.

    Hitchens was an enigma of our time. I am thankful for his passion and skill in labeling much evil for what it is. Alternately, I am sorrowful that he did not follow the clues given to us by the "problem of evil." For evil can be recognized and defined only if there is a definition of good that comes from outside of the material existence of man.

  • Jim

    Hitchend flipping off Bill Maher's audience, while defending the Iraq war…
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uU2KCEV65Jk

  • skeptiktb

    Horowitz errs, consciously, when he burbles of the "Left's" "disgraceful attacks on their country" during the Iraq invasion. This is dishonest. As he well knows, we weren't attacking the country; we were attacking the hacks running it. It is much the same as when "conservatives" attack BHO for everything. That Horowitz feels the need to join in the senseless celebration of a thug is testament to just how far that thug had sunk.