Some time ago we published Anthony McCarthy's critique of Christopher Hitchens' book God is not so Great. Now we offer the Polish heretic philosopher Marek Glogoczowski's response, while totally disagreeing with Marek's view.

 

The Poisoning of the Earth by Ahriman’s Inspired Fairy Tales of Redemption and Natural Selection

A commentary to A. McCarthy versus Ch. Hitchens polemics on “Greatness of God”

 

At the end of May I had the possibility to read, thanks to “shamireaders” website, a long article of Anthony McCarthy, published initially at www.culturewars.com [1], and containing a critics of a ‘best selling’ at present book titled “God is not Great”, written by Christopher Hitchens. McCarthy attacks this atheism praising work from the point of view of a dogmatic Catholicism. Thus no wonder that my mind&body reaction, of an “apostate Christian”, who since 26 years is at odds with the neo-Judaist “dominate the earth” ideology of pope John Paul II, was of course in favor of Hitchens’ arguments against God of Old Testament.

Read more on http://www.israelshamir.net/Contributors/rd4.htm 

 

(2) The Chomsky responses are being placed on our site at http://www.israelshamir.net/Contributors/rd3.htm and they will be refreshed frequently.

A new response by Hans Olav Brendberg, Norway:

Shamir: A little comment on the Chomsky debate:Chomsky – like everybody else – should be criticized when his argument is one-sided, erroneous or suffers from lack of logic. But Chomsky is not a man free to take on every question. He is an old man who has only limited time left to complete his lifes work, and our enemies wold delight if this work could be derailed, even on minor issues.

And the label of “gatekeeper” do not fit. Chomsky is not the man who make polemic against “antisemites”, “conspiration theorists” etc. He is silent on some issues – and that silence should be respected, at least up to a point. We should also keep  in mind the role Chomsky has had in promoting the work of others,  eg. Israel Shahak, Norman Finkelstein etc. That is not a “gatekeepers” role. But his comment on Mearsheimer/Walt was not his best moment – and there he maybe played the role of gatekeeper.

The problem is not Chomsky, but the “Chomskyites”, the lazy and small-minded leftist who do not want the job of clearing new field for thought – like Chomsky do – but who strictly limit themselves to the terrain already cleared by Chomsky, and who dogmatically condemns everyone who seek gain new terrain in different directions. I really am not sure that Chomsky is all that happy about having this kind of followers, but as we know: In politics you cannot always select your own following.

I really think Jeff Blankfort and James Petras makes a lot of sense when they try to point out the weaknesses of leftist analysis of the Palestine question. But I think they are too harsh with Chomsky. Their main target is/should be these kind of narrowminded leftist of the “chomskyite” type. Those people should be confronted more, without making Chomsky himself the main problem. Our differences with Chomsky is important enough, but could be discussed without making his person a big issue. He is a man who has done more than his job, and this demands respect even when one disagree on minor issues of principle.