Current Quarter Expenses.
Donate Today!
Posted on 01/15/2012 2:18:32 PM PST by rhema
bfl
I have no truck with Hitchen’s adolescent infatuation with Trotsky. When I was a kid, I was intrigued by the Russian Revolution which lead me to interview Kerensky (a janitor in Yorkville, upper Manhattan) and Maria Rasputin (his daughter). As I said in my original post, I don’t agree on a lot of what Hitchen’s believed in. But he may have been on to something with Mother Theresa...
It goes against the mainstream media impression of her that we all grew up with in such an extreme manner that most people tune it out as simply impossible to believe.
:-)
Mother Teresa certainly did not endorse the activities of dictators and criminals....and if they wanted to salve their consciences by donating to the needy....why should she deny them the opportunity?
Mother Teresa never judged others-—her philosphy was simply that....... one’s activities are between them and God.......b/c only he can judge.
Was he spared the hellfires? All Hitchens had to say was two simple words-—”save me.”
Because in Keating's case, the money was stolen.
I sometimes wonder how much that really means. Remember the parable about the servents who were given amounts of their masters treasure to invest....I think that Hitchens used his God given talents to the best of his ability. While I cartainly disagree with his conclusions as to the existance of God, he certainly garnered enough controversy to make people think and perhaps strengthen their own belief system. If we are never challenged, we can become complacent and therefore weaker in our beliefs. We should all examine our conciences and determine whether or not we live up to Christ's expectations. I'm quite certain that most of us have a lot of making up to do!!
Never dishonest? Surely you realize that that can’t be said of anyone except Christ.
I understand that many conservatives show a kind of canine gratitude to prominent leftists who deviate in some area or other from the conventional, putrid liberal orthodoxies. Nevertheless, Hitchens’ few deviations cannot, and don’t, make Hitchens “never dishonest.”
I am familiar with much of what he wrote and have seen him “debate”. There are many ways of being dishonest, and Hitchens seemed particularly given to using strawmen, guilt-by-association, omissions, and distortions to gain an unearned advantage and to smear others.
On a deeper level - well - he didn’t have one. He had opinions and a style but didn’t give evidence of ever having thought much of anything through honestly to its metaphysical core. Nor, for that matter, did he show much interest in the careful handling of facts.
He wrote against Mohammedanism: True enough, and I think that it reflected a kind of courage born of his agressiveness toward anything or anyone that challenged his comfortable existence. Yet, while we may share his opposition to Mohammedanism, I suspect that Hitchens’ motivations and mine, as well as the motivations of others here, are on the whole quite different.
He also, as you pointed out, took aim at the Clintons and Blumenthal during “L’Affair Lewinsky.” I applaud that. Much of the left press at the time acted like outsourced Administration damage control operatives.
Since we are on the subject of the embarrassments of the Clinton Administration, you may recall the stories early on about how the Clinton entourage would steal bathrobes, towels, and, even, cutlery from places upon which that cloud of locusts would descend.
I don’t for a moment want to suggest that Hitchens engaged in that sort of dishonesty. Instead, the dishonesty manifest in his work taken as a whole is intellectual and fairly persistent, though not without exception. And, of course,intellectual dishonesty isn’t just determined by whether someone holds the right or wrong view.
Silly.
A reasonable person reading your post would surely think that you were saying that he was a dishonest person, as in we all know people who are serial liars and we all know people who we would consider "honest".
Hitchens was the latter, intellectually and personally as far as I know, and I know a lot about him. It seems you're confusing your extreme disagreement with his point of view with intellectual dishonesty, and without specific examples, I'm politely calling bull$hit on your claim.
I don't agree with him on a lot of things, but seeing him take down people like Chris Hedges and Scott Ritter showed someone who was unmasking dishonesty, not displaying it.
Again its a question of not judging others-—only Keating knows if money he donated was stolen.
“..to make people think and perhaps strengthen their own belief system.”
Hitchens had that affect on me.I've had struggles through my life as we all have.Reading or listening to him in debates served to strengthen my faith in the Lord.
“We should all examine our conciences and determine whether or not we live up to Christ's expectations. I'm quite certain that most of us have a lot of making up to do!!”
We all fall short,but I surmise,that you as well as many others know that.Having said that He accepts us as we are.What breaks my heart is that so many people will not even look to Christ as The Counselor.
It seems such a waste that Hitchens,in his great intellect could not simply look around and see that God is.This world and everything in it,is just too complicated to have just been a huge accident.
I saw on this thread that some have a problem with Hitch but like I said above,his atheism strengthened my faith.
He stole millions; he admitted it. The victims kindly asked for their property back from the MT and the MOC, who promptly ignored them.
If someone steals from innocent people and gives the money to a charitable organization, the charity is under a moral obligation to give it back. Would it be OK with you for someone to steal everything you own and leave you destitute, as long as they gave your money and property to "charity"?
This is what I'm talking about miss marmelstein. I've seen people bend themselves over backwards to excuse any blame whatsoever for the Keating and Duvalier fiascoes. It's a sight to see.
I am a Deputy District Attorney in Los Angeles County and one of the persons who worked on the prosecution of your benefactor, Charles H. Keating, Jr. I read your letter to Judge Ito, written on behalf of Mr. Keating, which includes your admission that you know nothing about Mr. Keating's business or the criminal charges presented to Judge Ito. I am writing to you to provide a brief explanation of the crimes of which Mr. Keating has been convicted, to give you an understanding of the source of the money that Mr. Keating gave to you, and to suggest that you perform the moral and ethical act of returning the money to its rightful owners.
Mr. Keating was convicted of defrauding 17 individuals of more than $900,000. These 17 persons were representative of 17,000 individuals from whom Mr. Keating stole $252,000,000. Mr. Keating's specific acts of fraud were that he was the source of a series of fraudulent representations made to persons who bought bonds from his company and he also was the repository of crucial information which he chose to withhold from bond purchasers, thereby luring his victims into believing they were making a safe, low-risk investment. In truth and in fact, their money was being used to fund Mr. Keating's exorbitant and extravagant lifestyle.
The victims of Mr. Keating's fraud come from a wide spectrum of society. Some were wealthy and well-educated. Most were people of modest means and unfamiliar with high finance. One was, indeed, a poor carpenter who did not speak English and had his life savings stolen by Mr. Keating's fraud.
The biblical slogan of your organization is 'As long as you did it to one of these My least brethren. You did it to Me'. The 'least' of the brethren are among those whom Mr. Keating fleeced without flinching. As you well know, divine forgiveness is available to all, but forgiveness must be preceded by admission of sin. Not only has Mr. Keating failed to admit his sins and his crimes, he persists in self-righteously blaming others for his own misdeeds. Your experience is, admirably, with the poor. My experience has been with the 'con' man and the perpetrator of the fraud. It is not uncommon for 'con' men to be generous with family, friends and charities.
Perhaps they believe that their generosity will purchase love, respect or forgiveness. However, the time when the purchase of 'indulgences' was an acceptable method of seeking forgiveness died with the Reformation. No church, no charity, no organization should allow itself to be used as a salve for the conscience of the criminal. We all are grateful that forgiveness is available but we all, also, must perform our duty. That includes the Judge and the Jury. I remind myself of the biblical admonition of the Prophet Micah: 'O man, what is good and what does the Lord require of you. To do justice, love mercy and walk humbly.'
We are urged to love mercy but we must do justice.
You urge Judge Ito to look into his heart — as he sentences Charles Keating — and do what Jesus would do. I submit the same challenge to you. Ask yourself what Jesus would do if he were given the fruits of a crime; what Jesus would do if he were in possession of money that had been stolen; what Jesus would do if he were being exploited by a thief to ease his conscience?
I submit that Jesus would promptly and unhesitatingly return the stolen property to its rightful owners. You should do the same. You have been given money by Mr. Keating that he has been convicted of stealing by fraud. Do not permit him the 'indulgence' he desires Do not keep the money. Return it to those who worked for it and earned it!
If you contact me I will put you in direct contact with the rightful owners of the property now in your possession.
Sincerely,
Paul W. Turley
(Lawyer for victims of Charles Keating's theft)
I should have known better than to reply to someone who could claim that Hitchens, or anyone, for that matter, was never dishonest.
You seem to confuse agreeing with Hitchens sometimes, or admiring a few of the things he did, with his modus operandi.
I’m sorry. I cannot see why Dr. Mohler wasted all that time, bandwidth and virtual ink on that one particular God-hater. The loss of any eternal, never-dying soul is tragic. Once Hitchens assumed room temperature and was beyond redemption, HE was no more a tragedy than an unsaved wino who died on skid row. IMHO
Nice bit of gibberish.
Even Hitchens would have laughed out loud at your claim he was never dishonest, which would have been an honest moment for him.
Do you have other examples of people who were “never dishonest”? Perhaps we could ask them to run for office.
You are puffed up thinking you have scored a logical point when all you have done is commit an empirical pratfall.
Hitchens was 56 when he uttered those words, hardly an adolescent. To the rational it explains his bigotry, the irrational don't matter. I hope he got right with the Lord but whether he did or didn't his sneering bigotry on Gaia does not seem to be worthy of admiration. But your mileage may vary vary on that.
Thanks for your post #4. That was exactly my response to this man’s death.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.