-
We Used to Call Him Baghdad Jim
June 7, 2013 | 78 comments
-
Obama’s Sword and Shield
May 29, 2013 | 27 comments
-
Pick Obama’s Brain
May 16, 2013 | 61 comments
-
Remembering Herb Romerstein
May 10, 2013 | 5 comments
-
Obama’s Planned Parenthood Love Fest
April 29, 2013 | 69 comments
In Memoriam
On Vaclav Havel — and Chris Hitchens
One of the seven individuals most responsible for peacefully ending the Cold War has died.
Vaclav Havel is dead. Among other forces and powers, he is one of the seven individuals most responsible for peacefully ending the Cold War; the great liberators who brought freedom and democracy. They are Ronald Reagan, Pope John Paul II, Mikhail Gorbachev, Boris Yeltsin, Margaret Thatcher, Lech Walesa, and Havel.
With Havel’s death, a majority of these seven are now gone, giving new voice and added meaning to what Chesterton deemed the democracy of the dead.
All waged battle against what Reagan inspiringly called the “Evil Empire,” a brute creation cobbled out of a diabolical ideology that generated the deaths of over 100 million in the last century. At the core of that evil was what Mikhail Gorbachev characterized as a “war on religion,” which, among other forms of malevolence, spawned what Vaclav Havel described as “the communist culture of the lie.” As they engaged the beast, John Paul II admonished all to “Be not afraid.”
Vaclav Havel was unafraid. He and his Charter 77 movement were courageous, willing to go to jail rather than take orders from the devils who installed themselves as dictators from Budapest to Bucharest, from Warsaw to Prague.
As if all of this, unfolding here on earth a short time ago, was not profound enough, I’m suddenly struck at the profundity of Havel passing into the next world alongside Christopher Hitchens, and both shortly before Christmas.
Peter Robinson, who knows about the collapse of communism, having written Ronald Reagan’s Brandenburg Gate speech, interviewed Hitchens for his PBS show Uncommon Knowledge. Robinson was troubled by Hitchens’ willingness to concede credit to Havel for the collapse but none to Reagan. He took on Hitchens at that moment, not letting him get away with the slight against Reagan. I wish Vaclav Havel himself would have been there to set Hitchens straight. Havel said of Reagan, ironically at Reagan’s death: “He was a man with firm positions, with which he undoubtedly contributed to the fall of communism.”
Havel had a lot to teach to Hitchens. Hitchens would have listened to Havel.
Indeed, of all people on this planet whom God might have chosen to counsel a stunned Hitchens as he sits outside the Pearly Gates shaken in awed confusion, Havel would have been perfect, the one intellectual to merit Hitchens’ intellect and respect. If Hitchens’ un-merry band of atheists will forgive me, the religious romantic in me can’t help but indulge an image of Hitchens sitting there, hunched over, head in hands, only to look up at a smiling Havel and saying, “Fancy that I’d see you here. You just getting here?”
Vaclav Havel was not just a man of politics and intellect, but a man of the arts, theater, literature — and, yes, of God. He exhorted the West and the wider post-modern world to seek “transcendence.” Hitchens might have figured God “the ultimate totalitarian,” but Havel saw God as the solution to totalitarianism, as tyranny’s antidote, as the fountainhead of freedom. This was something Havel deeply admired about America and its roots — its fusion of faith and freedom and the recognition that the latter cannot genuinely exist without the former. “The Declaration of Independence states that the Creator gave man the right to liberty,” Havel concluded in his July 4, 1994 lecture at Philadelphia’s Independence Hall, home of that very sentiment. “It seems man can realize that liberty only if he does not forget the One who endowed him with it.”
Vaclav Havel never forgot that principle nor its Endower. Neither did any of the Cold War seven that laid waste to the Soviet beast. And it was with the power of that conviction that they tapped the ultimate force that resolved the Cold War and won the victory for freedom and good against oppression and evil.
Vaclav Havel now joins the Heavenly majority. May he rest in peace, at last reaching true transcendence.
About the Author
Paul Kengor is professor of political science and executive director of The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College. He is author of the new book The Communist: Frank Marshall Davis, The Untold Story of Barack Obama’s Mentor. His other books include The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism and Dupes: How America’s Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (68) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Paul Kengor
More Articles From In Memoriam
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/12/19/on-vaclav-havel-and-chris-hitc
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Current Wisdom
- Confessions of a Soft-Drinking Newspaperman
- A Panoply of Beauties
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
The Bishop| 12.19.11 @ 6:23AM
Hitchens is apparently everybody's favorite atheist. But he's also the atheist who defamed and trashed Mother Theresa at the time of her death.
rhoetus| 12.19.11 @ 8:33AM
Hitchens should spend his eternity in the Gulag contemplating his fate for not speaking for those souls who died under communism.
Seek| 12.19.11 @ 12:12PM
Hitchens most certainly was a harsh critic of Stalin. Apparently, you've read little of his work.
Jack in Wi.| 12.19.11 @ 3:25PM
Hitchens hated Stalin, like a good Trotskyite should . Now he and Leon are together in eternity trying to plan the next murderous revolution. Hitchens became a neocon because he saw the similarities with Trotsky's world wide revolution. Old Trotskyites like Kristol, Podhoretz, and Hitchens all wanted to change from worldwide Communist revolution to worldwide democratic revolution. The trouble is they didn't want to ask the people involved what they wanted. They thought they could force it with bombs and tanks.
rhoetus| 12.19.11 @ 8:35PM
I was referring to the next Stalin - this was a rhetorical device. Left wing intellectuals never learn. They believe that the "Revolution" can be corrected next time- it always ends in blood. Hitchens was blind to his own prejudges.
Sports Illus.| 12.19.11 @ 9:09AM
The pearly gates?
The streets of gold?
Yeah, sure. You betcha.
Christopher Hitchens was a giant among insects, and you, Mr. Kengor, are an insect as far as intellect goes.
You're not even fit to say Hitchen's name.
rhoetus| 12.19.11 @ 9:46AM
Hitchens was a fool - the greater fool theory dictates a worship of intellect above all.
Brenda| 12.19.11 @ 10:07AM
He who calls his brother a fool is in danger of hell fire.
Read your Bible, Bubba.
rhoetus| 12.19.11 @ 10:12AM
I call them as I see them.
Krokodile Tiers| 12.19.11 @ 10:17AM
For me, Hitchen's finest moment was when he went on Fox News, the propaganda channel for the American far right, and went after Jerry Falwell as a charlatan, a cynic, a money-grubber and a hater of people he didn't know. And yes: on the day after Falwell's death. He was utterly unintimidatable, drily dressing down the interviewer and finally rebelling against the whole charade with a rallying last retort: "If you gave Jerry Falwell an enema, you could bury him in a matchbox!"
Long live the legacy of the brilliant Christopher Hitchens!
rhoetus| 12.19.11 @ 10:46AM
Intellectual hate is all Hitchens offered the world, his kind are a dime/ten-thousand.
Krokodile Tiers| 12.19.11 @ 11:01AM
On the contrary, it was the likes of Jerry Falwell who preached hate. And the religious right is still carrying his bitter message.
I celebrate Christ's mission of Peace on Earth, Good Will Toward Men. This, alas, is not the mission of the Religious Right.
Sports Illus.| 12.19.11 @ 11:08AM
Tell it, Krokodile. You're speaking the uncomfortable truth, but the readers of AmSpec will not get it (willful ignorance).
The religious right has hijacked Christianity and turned it into right-wing political doctrine, thus perverting and cheapening it.
rhoetus| 12.19.11 @ 11:22AM
Like the Religious Left- denial of the evil of Communism, denial that the slave masters like Kim Jong Il, Castro, Pol Pot, Stalin and Mao murdered millions.
SeymourGlass| 12.19.11 @ 12:35PM
It may come as news to you, SI, that Christianity exists elsewhere then the US.
W| 12.19.11 @ 5:59PM
Sports/KTiers
What is the religious right?
Anthony M| 12.19.11 @ 8:43PM
Falwell preached hate? Now I'm no baptist, but I do remember the man, and I don't remember him ever preaching "hate". Maybe you're thinking of "Rev" Al Sharpton or "Rev" jeremiah Wright or maybe "Rev" Jesse 'Hymietown' Jackson. Just because you didn't agree with the man's faith or politics doesn't mean he preached hate.
Margie| 12.19.11 @ 11:35PM
Krokodile tiers:
You must be a Papist. To them, the message of the Gospel is hate, and those that speak it are vile, hateful bigots and heretics.
However, God proclaims:
"And how can men preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who preach good news!" Rom. 10:15.
Too bad you are so blind that you cannot recognize God's Truth when you hear it!
godispretend| 12.19.11 @ 7:37PM
Hitchens never offered what was not well deserved and supportable by simple observation.
Anthony M| 12.19.11 @ 8:44PM
It's true, that horrible Mother Theresa, feeding and nursing and clothing the poor. Little crissie hitchens sure was right about her.
Margie| 12.19.11 @ 12:43PM
Key word: BROTHER.
And he wasn't one.
Read your Bible, indeed,"Brenda".
Brenda| 12.19.11 @ 1:40PM
Margie, dear,
I know you consider yourself a inerrant theologean. But would you interpret "You are your brother's keeper" to mean only the birth brother?
And may our Blessed Mother of God watch over you . . .
Brenda| 12.19.11 @ 5:32PM
Make that "an inerrant . . ."
Margie| 12.19.11 @ 11:02PM
No, I do not consider myself that, you're lying.
What I DO consider inerrant is the Words of God spoken through His appointed Apostles and Prophets.
You know, the God of the Bible, and His Son, Jesus Christ?
Now let's not play games, ok?
You are now speaking of another verse, and I was speaking to the one you spoke of originally, above, which was addressed to brothers in Christ.
Tony in Central PA| 12.19.11 @ 10:22PM
You're an atheist ?
Riiight.
Jeff R| 12.19.11 @ 6:50AM
The irony of Havel and Hitchens passing at the same time shouldn't be missed. Wasn't it Havel who said something along the lines that "truth and love will win out over lies and hate?"
Hitchens was no liar, but he could be a world class hater. Like many atheists, he had contempt for faith and the faithful... and at times more than contempt, outright hostility.
The atheist's anger, contempt, and hostility will avail him nothing in the long run. Then, again, why would an atheist care about the long run?
W| 12.19.11 @ 7:29AM
Mr. Kengor,
I agree with your list, but let us add, and never forget, the 100,000 Americans killed in Korea and Vietnam, and the hundreds of thousands injured in the fight against the commies.
Richard Maloney| 12.19.11 @ 8:30AM
I came to read an article about Vaclav Havel and expand my knowledge about a topic I know very little about. Instead, I read a truncated and sloppy obituary conflated with a hit piece on atheists, and I walked away knowing less about Havel.
Worse still, it the piece was unfounded and ugly. "Havel had a lot to teach to Hitchens. Hitchens would have listened to Havel," the writer asserts, never once bringing up Havel's ground-breaking theological argument that might have swayed Hitchens from his null position. There's also the image the author invokes of kindly, smiling Havel patiently explaining to Hitchens why he'll burn in Hell--simply disgusting. That line led this reader to wonder if Havel would have wanted Hitchens there as his brain was shutting down, as his fantasies of an everlasting afterlife ebbed away with his only life.
Articles like this one are the reason Hitchens was so vicious in his advocacy of atheism. Theists condescend to atheists without a scrap of proof to back up their incredulous claims, then insist that those who don't set aside their skeptical inquiry and blindly believe in their dogma are going to burn forever.
Lucy| 12.19.11 @ 8:57AM
Well said, Mr. Maloney. Your words express exactly what my thoughts were after reading this article.
PJ| 12.19.11 @ 9:05AM
Show me proof that God does not exist.
CN| 12.19.11 @ 4:36PM
Children with cancer.
Simon Templar| 12.19.11 @ 4:46PM
Idiots like you.
Linus| 12.19.11 @ 5:34PM
Let's all avoid name calling; it's so juvenile.
Margie| 12.19.11 @ 11:43PM
CN,
If you understood the nature of Sin, and how this world is fallen and the flesh decays and becomes diseased, how even the Creation itself is corrupt and will pass away, you wouldn't say that.
If you sought after God and desired to find Him, He would be found by you, and you then wouldn't think that way.
I know because I used to think like you, too.
"..for the LORD searches all hearts, and understands every plan and thought. If you seek Him, He will be found by you; but if you forsake Him, He will cast you off for ever." 1 Ch. 28:9.
Andrew | 12.19.11 @ 3:41PM
I applaud your very insightful comment, Mr. Maloney. You just about summed up my views on this shameful hit piece which insults the legend of Havel to score cheap points against the legend of Hitchens.
True freedom requires no granter. The God of the Bible is an ultimate totalitarian. Any freedoms which a Great Governor can grant can be revoked the next instant on his petulant decree. As an opponent of all forms of totalitarianism, none repulses me more than paying constant, eternal gratitude to a metaphysical mass murderer for giving us our freedoms, ignoring the freedom-limiting gravitation field of Earth and the presence of freedom-limiting carnivores which will gladly eat humans. Do they go to Hell too?
Why does God care so much about whether certain subjects of the Universe believe in him? Moreover, why does only the Christian God guarantee freedom? Were there no freedoms before Christianity? And why don't Allah, Ra, Zeus, Inti, Baha'ullah, Yahweh, the Tooth Fairy, political correctness, or the deities of extraterrestrial civilizations have freedom-granting powers? It's a holey holy argument.
We have enough problems with this power-grabbing Marxist commander-in-chief to also enslave ourselves to a Universe-grabbing Great Governor by any name, but free men are manifestly welcome to do so. I will decline, thank you. I won't exchange freedom for the security of faith.
godispretend| 12.19.11 @ 7:49PM
Security?? Me thinks that Hitchens would argue that there is no security in faith. On the contrary, moderates amoung the faithful provide a veil of respectability to, and stand in defence of religious zealots who would curtail all of our freedom if they could.
Andrew | 12.19.11 @ 8:53PM
I concur - there is no security in faith, only the relinquishment of responsibility. The idea of always having God on their side comforts many people because it buffers them from the world's cruelties. This issue with this, of course, is that it doesn't actually attempt to alleviate this cruelty through the application of reason because it suspends its prerequisite: critical thought.
Faithful moderates are welcome to believe and disagree with me, and they have my friendship because their highest priorities are essentially secular and morally sound. Even so, I consider faith an intellectually dishonest position of the highest order, and I oppose the zealotry of dogma in all of its nasty flavors.
The Bruce| 12.19.11 @ 10:01PM
Then you're definitely not going to like reading the Book of Margie.
Margie| 12.19.11 @ 11:11PM
Hahaha! You WISH there were such a thing!
No, there is only the book that God gave us, it's called the Bible. In it those who care to can find what He requires of us.. and those who aren't interested, like yourself and your friends, along with Christopher Hitchens, will continue to proclaim your unbelief proudly.
But there IS a God, and He will judge each one according to whether or not they repented from their unbelief to belief in the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Mk. 1:15:
"The time is fulfilled, and the Kingdom of God is at hand; repent, and believe in the Gospel."
Each one does as he or she is destined to do.
Andrew | 12.20.11 @ 1:53PM
My argument isn't against a god or gods, because they obviously exist in the minds of those who believe. I argue against faith, that mental process which inspires irrational superstitions like the existence of an invisible, imaginary friend who also created the universe.
If the God of the Bible truly cares more about whether the subjects of a single planet in this universe believe in his existence without a lick of solid evidence (the Bible is anecdotal), and will sentence them to eternal suffering for not holding that belief, that God is immoral for policing our thoughts and prescribing a cruel, unusual punishment. Not to mention that a kingdom is a despotic form of government, which inherently limits the freedoms of its subjects - also, why are only humans subject to this scrutiny?...
This is not a idea I can take seriously.
However, in the interests of fairness, I will mention that Islam inspires much greater atrocities nowadays than does modern Christianity with its mandate of jihad. Hitchens was outspoken in his excoriation of Islam, too.
Tony in Central PA| 12.19.11 @ 10:26PM
Where did it say anything in the article about Hitchens burning in hell ?
One thing about hell ; the only people who end up there are the ones who truly want to be there.
rhoetus| 12.19.11 @ 8:31AM
You mention Hitchens in an article about Vaclav Havel and the Czechs' Velvet Revolution and leave out Vaclav Klaus. Shameful!
Lawrence D. Cannon| 12.19.11 @ 8:37AM
One of these things is not like the other, one of these things just don't belong- Mikhail Gorbachev.
The only difference between Gorbachev and the other Soviet dictators is that he's still alive. He was just an appartchik bureaucrat who managed to stay out of the Gulag long enough to get to the top of that festering pool of slime that was the Soviet Union, and was forced along for the ride after Ronald Reagan, Maggie Thatcher, and Pope John Paul II helped force open the doors of freedom in Eastern Europe, and George H. W. Bush made sure the transition to freedom was relatively bloodless.
PJ| 12.19.11 @ 9:06AM
I thought the same thing about Gorbachev.
Gary B| 12.19.11 @ 9:07AM
And who will be the heros most responsible for winning the cold war against an even greater Evil Empire in DC? This particular cold war will not end peacefully.
The American people represent the final obstacle to the New World Order. There is blood in the water now and those elitist bastards smell it. They're going in for the kill in November.
We are running out of time. Who will be our heros?
richard ryan| 12.19.11 @ 9:14AM
Thomas Jefferson had a very healthy approach to dealing with religion. In a letter written to his daughter, he advises her to approach the Bible and religious teachings with an open mind. Do not let others sway you in your reason, and always treat the opinions of others with respect.
Gary B| 12.19.11 @ 11:18AM
I assume Obama is training his daughters in the Chicago way.
SeymourGlass| 12.19.11 @ 6:44PM
"Do not let others sway you in your reason."
Accordingly, I'm sure Jefferson never expressed an opinion. Why do this, if not to "sway others" by his reason?
Margie| 12.19.11 @ 11:12PM
Yeah, Papist, why?
Freedom of speech for thee, but not for me?
D. Singh| 12.19.11 @ 10:16AM
Sir
Excellent compare and contrast piece on Hitchens and Havel.
Paolo | 12.19.11 @ 2:58PM
As I can translate, "Coincidence is the name God assumes when He wants to sink into oblivion" J.Cocteau
Marko| 12.19.11 @ 10:26AM
I find the following rather interesting. It is taken from an article written by Robert Lee in 1995:
In January 1968, a so-called "liberal" faction within Czechoslovakia's Communist Party, led by Alexander Dubcek, temporarily took control of the country. In his 1984 book New Lies for Old, former KGB agent Anatoliy Golitsyn claimed that it was a carefully-plotted trial run aimed at determining if the West would actually fall for the fantasy that a totalitarian Communist country could spontaneously switch to "democracy" under the leadership of supposed "reformed" Communists and their collaborators. According to Golitsyn, the ploy had been planned in the late 1950s, prior to his defection to the West, and was brought to an end without exposing the supposed "democratization" when, after seven months, Warsaw Pact troops invaded, ousted Dubcek, and installed a Stalinist regime. Indications that something was fishy included the nonviolent nature of the invasion (Dubcek and his colleagues did not resist) and the fact that neither Dubcek nor his key advisers were executed nor given lengthy jail terms. To the contrary, Dubcek was given a plush job as a forestry manager in Bratislava.
Golitsyn predicted in 1984 that the time would come when, as part of a new phase of Communist strategy, "liberalization in Eastern Europe would probably involve the return to power in Czechoslovakia of Dubcek and his associates." On December 10, 1989, hard-line Communist President Gustav Husek resigned, and that same day Dubcek and playwright Vaclav Havel (leader of the left wing of the Civic Forum political movement) announced that they would both run to replace Husek. Havel had earlier said of Dubcek: "I will not permit any dark forces to drive a wedge between him and me .... He must be at my side, in whatever function." Referring to Havel, Dubcek asserted: "We've been together from the very start."
Within less than a week, Dubcek dropped out of the race and threw his support to Havel. That same day, during a nationally televised address, Havel declared: "For 20 years, it was official propaganda that I was an enemy of socialism, that I wanted to bring back capitalism, that I was in the service of imperialism .... All those were lies." One week later the Communist Party endorsed Havel as interim president and Dubcek as parliamentary chairman. The Federal Assembly (parliament) unanimously elected Dubcek as speaker on December 28, 1989, and the next day elected Havel president. The fulfillment of Golitsyn's prediction was complete.
Mike Hawk| 12.19.11 @ 10:54AM
Atheists I hve encounterd hate themselves. They seem to secretly blame God for their misery and anger.
A few years ago, not 2 years after the fall of the "Iron Curtain" (you young leftist pukes may not be familiar with that term.), I was at The Liberty Bell on 4th off July weekend with my young daughter. The crowd was large and when we got our turn at the bell, the Park ranger asked all of us where were from. Fully 2/3rds had come from Eastern Europe to see the Liberty Bell. I was impressed that on their first trips to the USA that was at or near the top of their list of things to see. They knew all to well what Liberty meant and knew it was an inalienable right from God. I was choked up and still do when I think of it. You socialist left clowns who want Obama's Hopey/ Changey tyranny need to know that, though I doubt you care.
Gary B| 12.19.11 @ 11:22AM
Hear, hear...
Regarding Hitchens, waste of a brilliant mind.
Linus| 12.19.11 @ 8:09PM
"leftist pukes"
Here we go again--playground name calling.
Please have the maturity to refrain.
Margie| 12.19.11 @ 11:15PM
We already have the Papist Police, what do we need the word Police, too?
cicero| 12.19.11 @ 1:38PM
Not much point in contrasting the two men. Hitchens, while an athiest, was a great writer, and he had a clever mind. You could disagree with his argument, and the contents of his writings while still enjoying them. He always reminded me of Pascal's Paradox. It costs you nothing to believe in a supreme God, while it may cost you everything not to. I'll take my chances with belief. Besides, the arguments for are more sensible than those against. Nihilism never appealed to me.
As for Havel, he survived the politics of his country when many did not. I think we are still too close to the event to know the knights from the knaves. I don't believe that thee Sloviets gave freedom a test run to see what the West would do. That makes no sense. And to believe a former KGB agent does not make sense. I went to school in the late 50s with a boy whose family immigrated from Eastern Europe after the flare up in 1957. His older brother was in the streets and on the barricades. Somehow, he didn't recall any playacting on the part of the Russian tank commanders.
Edward Cropper | 12.19.11 @ 1:56PM
Vaclav Havel was the epitome of class and courage.
A truly great man who was an inspiration to all lovers of liberty.
A loss like this is all the more painful when you see the daily increase in society of the self absorbed
political midgets who put themselves
forward as statesmen.
Simon Templar| 12.19.11 @ 4:55PM
I am getting a little tired of hearing about his great mind and brilliance. He was an atheistic, hateful, brash, profane, and ignorant left wing socialist that spent most of his life throwing intellectual tantrums and self absorbed with his rage against God, standard morality, and those that believe in a God. I came to this conclusion after listening to about 25 TV appearances, 5 debates on youtube in which he participated, and numerous articles he wrote. His debates were the most telling. Yeah, brilliance...most of his tired arguments were about as sophmoric as you could get and the cheap shots when he was losing the debates..those were just brilliantly lame! He gave atheism a bad name.
Plutonium + Magnesium| 12.19.11 @ 8:33PM
Mr. Templar, you surely do think highly of yourself, don't you. Instead of watching Hitchens on teevee, why didn't you read his essays, his books?
His intellect and knowledge burst from the page like fireworks.
You, sir, are a worm--a worm too dumb to crawl through Hitchens' intestines.
Margie| 12.19.11 @ 11:26PM
Yeah, guys like Simon are so haughty, right?
Why? Because he dares to speak truthfully? Because he is honest and speaks his mind and it happens to be contrary to your opinion?
Intellect? The man raged against God. How smart is that? And how smart are you for believing him?
Consider Job 15:2-16:
"Should a wise man answer with windy knowledge, and fill himself with the east wind?
Should he argue in unprofitable talk, or in words with which he can do no good?
But you are doing away with the fear of God, and hindering meditation before God.
For your iniquity teaches your mouth, and you choose the tongue of the crafty.
Your own mouth condemns you, and not I; your own lips testify against you.
Are you the first man that was born? Or were you brought forth before the hills?
Have you listened in the council of God? And do you limit wisdom to yourself?
What do you know that we do not know? What do you understand that is not clear to us?
Both the gray-haired and the aged are among us, older than your father.
Are the consolations of God too small for you, or the word that deals gently with you?
Why does your heart carry you away, and why do your eyes flash, that you turn your spirit against God, and let such words go out of your mouth?
What is man, that he can be clean? Or he that is born of a woman, that he can be righteous?
Behold, God puts no trust in his Holy ones, and the Heavens are not clean in his sight; how much less one who is abominable and corrupt, a man who drinks iniquity like water!"
Simon Templar| 12.20.11 @ 10:06PM
Well, PMS, judging from your reply I can see that all that brilliance rubbed off on you and you are now a person who can articulate a position on a subject without resorting to brashness and profanity. Yes, I do think highly of my ability to express a logical argument. I have better use of my time than reading his rantings about God. As I said I have read some of his articles and have watched him debate. You need to improve your reading comprehension.
I would say he is feeling that worm just about now.
Barn Cat| 12.19.11 @ 6:34PM
Hitchens was a God-hater. It would be stupid to think he didn't believe in God. You can't hate something you don't believe exists. He'll finally pay for his sins now. Not just now but for eternity.
Linus| 12.19.11 @ 8:26PM
Uh huh.
You're too dumb to understand Hitchens' contribution to intellectual ideas.
Keep on believing in your pie in the sky by and by. It's gonna be your payoff, isn't it?
Margie| 12.19.11 @ 11:29PM
"The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none that does good." Ps. 14:1.
And what will your own pay-off be, word policeman?
Josephine| 12.19.11 @ 9:51PM
Rest in peace Vaclav Havel. You were one of the giants; I wept when I heard the news.
POST American| 12.19.11 @ 11:52PM
----Noticing The Guardian usues Havel's
death to muse upon some of the 'good things'
MONO-CAP created --'CALM--YOU--nism' produced.
Meanwhile, Hitchens, to our knowledge,
NEVER used his pulpit to call attention to
occult societies, or to highlight the NOW
undeniably horrifying aims of the EUGENISTS.
IN FACT, neither he, nor Steve Jobs, made
so much as a peep about the REALITY of
there being LIVE simian 40 sleeper cancer
viruses in those Dr Salk POLIO shots from
the 50's, 60's, 70's and 80's.
"These people didn't even get old.
----They just get stale."
D H Lawrence
Stale and utterly soldout ---deluded and blind.
SAD, but TRUE.
Dan Mathewson| 12.20.11 @ 4:02PM
Sad, But True was an o.k. Metallica song.