Coulter on her controversial comments regarding Jews and Christians: The "irreligious" are "trying to stir up trouble with the religious"
SUMMARY: Responding to Alan Colmes'
questioning about her comment that Christians "just want Jews to be
perfected," Ann Coulter said that she "wear[s]" criticism from
Jewish groups over the remark "as a badge of honor," adding,
"The point is: This is the same old fight we see all the time with the
irreligious trying to stir up trouble with the religious." Responding to
Colmes' assertion that Coulter "doesn't want to own up
to" her statement, Coulter said: "I gave a beautiful description of
the Old Testament and the New Testament, but it's very frightening to
secularists."
On the October 30 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, co-host Alan Colmes said to his guest, conservative author and pundit Ann Coulter: "I haven't spoken to you since you made your infamous comment saying that people like me need to be 'perfected,' " adding, "So how about embracing one of the great Christian virtues, as Jesus discussed, humility, and apologizing to all those people you offended by that comment?" Colmes was referring to Coulter's statement, documented by Media Matters for America, on the October 8 edition of CNBC's The Big Idea with Donny Deutsch that "we" Christians "just want Jews to be perfected." Responding to Colmes, Coulter stated: "[I]f you're going to go around citing all the people I have offended, Alan, I have 1,000 Orthodox rabbis supporting me." Later, Colmes asserted: "You claim 1,000 Orthodox rabbis support you. I don't know who they are, but I can tell you, you know the Anti-Defamation League, the American Jewish Congress, and many others have condemned you for that. Do you care?" Coulter responded: "I wear it as a badge of honor. It's like citing the National Organization of Women to tell me how all women feel. The point is: This is the same old fight we see all the time with the irreligious trying to stir up trouble with the religious."
Coulter's response on Hannity & Colmes echoes remarks she made on the October 15 broadcast of Townhall Radio's The Michael Medved Show, where -- as Media Matters documented -- she claimed: "This is just the irreligious against the religious," while responding to criticism surrounding her comments on The Big Story. Coulter made a similar statement later that same evening on Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, as Media Matters also documented.
Coulter's assertion that "I have 1,000 Orthodox Jews supporting me" is an apparent reference to an October 15 article published on LifeSiteNews.com -- a "non-profit Internet service dedicated to issues of culture, life, and family" that "emphasizes the social worth of traditional Judeo-Christian principles" -- which quoted Rabbi Yehuda Levin, a spokesman for the Rabbinical Alliance for America and the Union of Orthodox Rabbis of the United States and Canada, saying: "She said nothing that in any way indicates anti-Semitism." The article characterized Levin as a "spokesman for some 1000 orthodox rabbis" and also quoted him as saying: "It is a fact that millions of Christians believe in evangelizing and preaching the gospel and it is their belief for a Jew to accept the tenets of Christianity and accept the divinity somehow completes them and brings them to perfection," and noted that "Levin stressed, 'That's obviously not our belief, that's not the traditional Jewish belief at all.'"
During the show, following Colmes' assertion that Coulter "doesn't want to own up to" her October 8 statement, Coulter said: "I gave a beautiful description of the Old Testament and the New Testament, but it's very frightening to secularists."
From the October 30 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes:
COLMES: I hate to break this up, but I haven't spoken to you since you made your infamous comment saying that people like me need to be "perfected." And so I want to give you an opportunity here, because as my good friend, the conservative rabbi Shmuley Boteach points out, Jesus was the faith practiced -- or Judaism, the faith practiced by Jesus for most of his life, his entire life, actually --
COULTER: Right.
COLMES: -- and he declares in Matthew that whoever goes against the smallest of the laws of Moses, teaching men to do the same will be named least in the kingdom of Heaven, but he who keeps the law of Moses, teaching others to keep them, will be named great in the kingdom of Heaven.
COULTER: Right.
COLMES: So, as Jesus said, the meek, not the rude and arrogant, will inherit the Earth. So how about embracing one of the great Christian virtues, as Jesus discussed, humility, and apologizing to all those people you offended by that comment?
COULTER: For one thing, I guess I'm once again responding to the headlines you've read about me, as opposed to what I actually said, because what you just quoted is precisely what I said, that Christians believe all of the Old Testament, that we consider our testament the continuation, the messiah you are anticipating in your testament.
And if you're going to go around citing all the people I have offended, Alan, I have 1,000 Orthodox rabbis supporting me. It appears to be the same people who hate [conservative radio host] Dennis Prager, who were upset about my remarks. All of these organizations based on, you know -- you know, being Jewish, being Muslim, being a woman, they represent Jews the way the National Organization for Women represents women.
COLMES: Ann, I'm up against a break here, but I'm going to challenge your assertion about how much of the Jewish community actually supports you when we get back, which I'm sure you'd like to waive that and say that that's what's going on --
COULTER: Religious Jewish community.
COLMES: We'll pick it up in a moment. More with Ann Coulter right after the break.
[...]
COLMES: We're back with Ann Coulter. You claim 1,000 Orthodox rabbis support you. I don't know who they are, but I can tell you, you know, the Anti-Defamation League, the American Jewish Congress, and many others have condemned you for that. Do you care?
COULTER: Yeah, the Anti-Defamation League condemns Dennis Prager. I wear it as a badge of honor. It's like citing the National Organization of Women to tell me how all women feel. The point is: This is the same old fight we see all the time with the irreligious trying to stir up trouble with the religious.
Yes, godless liberals are upset that other people believe in God. This is the exact same thing we saw with George Bush speaking at Bob Jones University. And suddenly, The New York Times was offended on behalf of Catholics, because of some untoward remarks the original Bob Jones had made about the Catholic Church, not as bad as what the New York Times had said about the Catholic Church, I might add, and religious people just don't fall for it. We know the real enemy are secularists.
COLMES: So all the Jews offended, upset and hurt by what you said, because words do hurt and they do sting, all those Jews, the ADL, the National --
COULTER: You don't even know what words I've said, since --
COLMES: -- let me get -- let me get my question out --
COULTER: -- you don't even know what words I said --
COLMES: -- all those people are irreligious? They lack religion, right, Ann?
COULTER: -- from the beginning part of what I said.
COLMES: They lack religion, all those people?
COULTER: No, I'm saying what this fight is about. You don't even know what words I said, based on what you apparently thought was contrary to something I had said.
COLMES: Ann, I know exactly what you said. You don't want to own up to it.
COULTER: I recommend -- no, you don't --
COLMES: You don't want to acknowledge the reaction to it.
COULTER: I said that the New Testament is the continuation of the Old Testament, that Christians believe that Jews who practice the Old Testament go to Heaven. Our testament is the fast track, because we have the messiah that is the anticipated throughout the Old Testament.
And as someone said -- I heard it was [former Israeli leader] Menachem Begin, I don't know if it is -- someone asked him, "If you meet the messiah on Earth, what would you say to him?" And he said, "I'd say, 'Is this your first time?' " That's what the whole Old Testament is anticipating. Some messiah. They think we got the wrong guy. I gave a beautiful description of the Old Testament and the New Testament, but it's very frightening to secularists.
COLMES: No, you use the classic language of anti-Semitism. However, let me move on here because there are lots of other things to talk about.
COULTER: What, like 'Good evening?'
COLMES: Let's get back to Nancy Pelosi. No, it's the classic language of anti-Semitism. You said in the past that women should be armed --
COULTER: How about eating soup? Is that a classic food of anti-Semites?
COLMES: Yeah, that's lovely, Ann. I'm going to move on in spite of yourself, and maybe save you from saying something else that's ridiculous.
Yes, yes.
Documenting Coulter's remarks is useless.
That's why she's still trying to clean up the mess at this late date.
Ann's not trying to clean up anything. She keeps being asked about it.
Think about this: How is it that Ann can say what she did, and there is this firestorm about it, but I would assume that most of the posters here do not believe that Judaism is true.
If you think that what the Jewish religion teaches is not true, how is what Ann said worse?
Whatever I think about Judaism isnt the same as me telling them they need to believe the way I do to be perfected or that they just arent as good as me.
She only stated the Christian belief that everyone needs to be saved through Jesus. It would apply to Muslims, Hindus, atheists, or any other religion. No one is suggesting forced conversions to Christianity.
Would you say the world would be better if more people believed the way you do?
care to admit you're wrong? she has suggested forced conversions.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200410050004
Saying that someone should become a Christian is not the same as forcing someone to become a Christian.
By the way: It would be better if no one was Muslim. We would have a lot fewer terrorists.
"we should invade their countries, kill their leaders, convert them to christianity".
Yes. "we should ... convert them to Christianity"
Christianity is never spread by force. It is spread by sharing the gospel and Christ-like love with people. I don't think you are understanding what Christians believe on this point.
I believe I should try to convince everyone to follow Christ, but no one can be forced to accept Christianity.
I may not agree with Coulter on every point, but one thing that I do agree with is that it would be better if everyone were Christian.
then exactly why are we invading their countries?
Because they keep sending people to kill us.
no sale, buddy. that is not the issue. if a country is sending people to kill us, then we do invade them. that is not what coulter is talking about. she's just saying any muslim country. it's moronic on top of it, from the point of invading what, 30 countries. get a grip on yourself.
The issue was whether it's wrong to express the belief that another person would be better off (and the world would be better off) if they believed the way I and other Christians believe.
no, the issue was you saying she was not in favor of forced conversions. she plainly is. and as for the world being a better place because others act as you believe, i do not dismiss the idea of radicalism among some muslims. what is absurd is the idea that you just going around invading countries solely because the majority of the people are of that certain religion.
You never answered my original question. Do you think it would be better if more people believed the way you do?
If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking. George S. Patton
You didn't answer the question
No, the world would not be better off. You christians are just as kooky as the rest of the religious nuts.
happy?
So you agree that the world would not be better if more people thought like you? That is something I agree with.
Your entire line of argument here is based on a fallacy called the Psychologist's Fallacy.
Personally, I believe that whatever works for you is fine as long as you don't disparage others for their own choices and as long as it helps you be a better person. If you espouse some sort of superiority of your view, then any challenge should be expected as in Coulter's case.
It comes down to truth. Do you believe that what Judaism teaches is true? If not, then you have just told millions of Jews that their beliefs are wrong.
do you think everything in christianity is "true"?
Yes, that's why I believe it.
noah's ark?
Yes, I believe the Bible literally.
so tell me where all the water came from. enough to cover the earth to 35,000 feet above sea level. and where did it go.
Why do you keep taking this off topic? Do you believe what Jews teach is true? I would assume you don't. Therefore you think they believe a lie. At least Ann said she believes in their Old Testament.
you were perfectly willing to discuss it, except when i ask the tough questions.
Debates don't work if the topic keeps changing. I can't go in depth on every inane point you try to make. you're asking me to prove noah's ark because I asked if you believe the Jews. I've had enough. Goodbye.
no, you just can't defend your statements. i asked you if christianity was "true", which is well with the subject of religions being "true".
look up AIG.com if you're so interested.
wrong site: answers in genesis
Then you're a fool.
I believe that whatever works for you, them or anyone is just fine. You are projecting.
You are avoiding my question. You don't believe that Judaism or Christianity is true.
so what? is it stopping you from believing?
I believe it all. Are you telling me I am wrong?
The question is irrelevant. Coulter's remarks suggest that she knows what is right and Jews (and everyone else) don't. I make no such contention. I admit that I don't know who is right - including myself.
You have finally made it clear that you don't really believe anything is true or not true. So do you admit that I or Ann may be right then?
Um duh? You both could be right obviously because no one can know for sure. It is a moot point though. Ann is being patronizing by assuming she is right and everyone else is wrong. It is really pretty simple.
I don't think you even read my link. Your response just repeats the same fallacious reasoning as before.
whatever you want to think dogrun, the issue between us was whether coulter suggested forced conversions. she did do that. sorry you were unable to refute the point.
Alright, but it is hard to argue against several people at once on several different topics. The only point I wanted to make was that Coulter merely said that it would be better if more people were Christian. Donny Deutsch started comparing that to Hitler. Apparently it is wrong to ever think any philosophy is better than any other.
well my point was that you were saying she's only stating it's a good idea, and she's not suggesting any forced conversions. she is.
And my point is that not everyone believes that what works for them works for everyone. It is based on a fairly common fallacy.
The point is this: is it true, and can you say that either Judaism or Christianity (or both) are not true?
You cannot say either is true or that they are not true. They are both unproven. Saying that someone in another religion needs to be "perfected" (as we all know Ann did) is needlessly patronizing.
Except that ISNT all she said. Even if it were its STILL the hiegth of arrogance. Whenever you are saying you are good thats all fine when you begin saying you are BETTER that is arrogance. Ann said she wanted Jews to be perfected by believing the way SHE does that is saying that they would be BETTER if they believed the way SHE does. That is arrogant and offensive.
That did answer the question. Diversity trumps your homogenous views of utopia every time.
So you don't think people should agree with you? If you want to have diverse thought, then why are conservatives so horrible? Shouldn't you welcome other points of view?
That's just a strawman argument. Why am I not surprised.
So you do think people should believe like you?
Of course not. It is called maturity.
So you don't think people should believe like you?
I don't care. You are entitled to your opinions - as long as they don't negatively impact other people and serve to make you a better person, I am all for it. It is okay to disagree.
Who was it who said if your religion makes you a better person than me your religion is better than mine?
the difference would be we are not forcing religion on anyone. something that you and annie are doing.
I am not forcing religion on anyone. I am not forcing you to believe like me. Don't be dishonest.
don't you want to invade those countries and convert them to christianity?
Wanting someone to convert does not equate with force.
again, one more time. she suggested invading any and all muslin countries, regardless of whether they are a threat to us or not. if that is not forcing i don't know what is.
All other points aside - what does an invasion have to do with conversion?
so then why are you doing the invasion if you are not trying to make people convert? what give you the right to invade another country and cause chaos and death merely so you can try to convert other people?
This hypothetical invasion should be about security. Faith and religion don't have anything to do with that in this case.
you are completely wrong. coulter's statements were not limited to security. she suggested invading "their" countries. that would be all muslim countries, threat or not.
When I was young I wrestled. I was very thin and not very strong. IF I had used the techniques most wrestlers do, had I just taken the road the majority of wrestlers took, I would never have been very good. What I did was develop a techinque that was unusual and it worked very well for me. I was very successful because I DIDNT do what most did since most people start wrestling because they are fast and strong. So NO. I think people ought to go THEIR route, I dont think for one SECOND that one route is best for everybody.
Lets just say the world wouldnt be better off if everyone believed the way YOU do.
apart from that, dogrun is plain wrong. What country did Osama bin Laden represent? That's the whole problem with a 'war on terror.' There is no 'nation state' to wage war against. Terrorists don't represent a country. And as for your 'there would be fewer terrorists if there were fewer moslems' comment - well, as equally 'valid,' there would be a lot more democracy in latin america if there was no such country as the united states. there would be a lot more, er, ALIVE people in Iraq if it weren't for the united states. Moslems are not terrorists. If we could equate moslems with terrorists, we would be royally screwed, because around 1 in 6 people in the world follow Islam. good luck with your war against a billion people, buddy.
Not all muslims are terrorists, but almost all terrorists are muslim.
lol. your tax dollars are funding an illegal and unjust war that have cost anywhere between 300,000 and 1,000,000 innocent lives. And you're telling me that most terrorists are moslem?
define terrorism for me, and then explain to me how America is not the number one sponsor of terrorism? Influence by force over the political self determination of others? The murder of innocent people for political and/or power incentives? Dismissal of laws governing war, treatment of criminals etc? Do I have to keep going with this tired line?
But I'm not ignorant enough to say 'Americans are terrorists' because I can distinguish between Americans (= your Muslims) and the homicidal cretins causing the destruction (=Al Qaeda etc).
Yes you are right. Al Qaeda is not made up of Muslims. My bad.
We are fighting against Islamic extremists who want us either dead or converted to Islam. They do not hide this as their goal. That is what they believe.
We have had suicide bombings by Muslims for the past 20 years.
I think you're missing my point. There are extremist Moslem's who commit terrorist acts. Thats a long way from being able to say 'most terrorists are moslems.' The United States government, but the definition of terrorist, is a far worse, statistically speaking, sponsor and perpetrator of terrorists acts, and its made up of christians, and empowered by christian voters in the US. The Tamil tigers are Hindu, fyi, and most importantly, suicide bombing is NOT the only method of committing terrorism.
If we are fighting Islamic extremists why did we invade Iraq again the most SECULAR Islamic country in the entire REGION? You make no sense. Just repeat the propaganda. Again the Tamil Tigers have done more suicide bombings in the past 30 years than ANY Islamic group. Also a study done by Robert Pape of every suidice bombing ever done shows that it is a military and political strategy and has no religious component, though religion is important for recruiting.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/06/30/schuster.column/
"There is little connection between suicide terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism, or any one of the world's religions," he says.
Or, from a broader perspective, most terrorists are religious conservatives.
Yeah, we keep hearing about all those Christian bombings all the time. And those Hindus, boy we better watch out for them.
are you suggesting that you've not heard about christians who murder in the name of their faith?
Do you deny that osama is a religious conservative?
In fact, let's go ahead and take this all the way:
Can you think of a presidential assassination attempt that was perpetrated by a liberal?
Can you think of any historically significant horrible crimes that were not committed by a conservative?
How about Stalin and Mao for starters?
Stalin was a socialist, and he worked against both the left and the right.
Mao is a bit closer, but he was a communist, and by virtue of his eager support of violent, armed revolution, was not liberal.
The point I'm making is that liberals don't have a history of killing those with whom they disagree and that conservatives do.
If you are relating Osama to American conservatism, then Stalin and Mao certainly would apply to American liberals.
Conservatism is conservatism. The basic principles are the same. I think it may be more accurate to use the words right-wing fundamentalists instead. The problem with the Middle-East is that there are so few strong secular liberals historically. We have been much more lucky in the west as liberalism has had more opportunity for success and progress. We take for granted basic concepts that liberals advanced at their time. Women's Suffrage, Civil Rights, even Democracy in general was a very liberal concept at one time.
The point is not that you can find someone who says he is Christian that does some awful thing. The point is that 99+% of Christians denounce acts of violence/terrorism.
I don't know exact numbers, but there are millions of Muslim extremists who support suicide bombings against non-Muslims.
I don't think those numbers are correct (they might be, but I don't know). I don't think that there are "millions" of muslims who support killing non-muslims any more than I would believe the same of christians. I think there are few people who think that way.
All I'm saying is that terrorist movements in history, with a few exceptions, have FAITH as a common denominator.
oh what a joke! how ignorant can you get???? you dont have ANY sources to back up ANYTHING you're saying, you're just making wild accusations about millions of people! What i can tell you, though, is that clearly millions of christians do support the killing of moslems, or more generally, arabs and persians. We call them Republican voters.
I'm not sure why you're flipping out. Have you read the whole thread?
sorry- its a response to dog run
http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=257
This report shows a minimum of 9% of Muslims supporting suicide bombings. Remember if the worldwide percentage is 10%, that's about 100 million who think suicide bombings are ok.
Would you kill to defend Christianity?
I guess Kosovo just blows that argument out of the water, it was christians ethnically cleansing the muslims from their country. Nice try though, claiming 99%...
Dogrun:
"The point is not that you can find someone who says he is Christian that does some awful thing. The point is that 99+% of Christians denounce acts of violence/terrorism.
I don't know exact numbers, but there are millions of Muslim extremists who support suicide bombings against non-Muslims. "
Where do you get your data??? MANY Christians condone violence and many commit violent acts. Historically, Christians have been extraordinarily violent. If, by your own admission, you don't know exact numbers, then you've made your claims worthless at the outset other than stating what you WANT to be true. Find the data first.
Who is this Christian leader that endorses violence?
Pat Robertson called for Chavez' assassination a while back just off the top of my head.
Dogrun:
You claim that no mainstream Christian leader would advocate violence. Please look up Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Oral Roberts, and many other televangelicals and/or Fundamentalists; all have advocated violence. Or are you claiming that they are too far to the right to be mainstream? That is not a rhetorical question, I truly would like to hear your answer.
Christians don't kill? Man where have you been living?Wasn't it the Christian Pilgrims that gave the native Americans blankets knowingly contaminated with smallpox? What about the slave "catechisms"? Not to speak of the good christian people that enjoyed the hanging of evil "black" men for Saturday night entertainment. How about the crusades-guess that don't count. Recent history-how about the shooting of doctors that work in womens health clinics, or the bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma. I agree with snoop and his great Patton quote,I mean if everyone thought and believed alike someone is not thinking. What a terrible and tragic world that would be. The problems of the world is not that were not believing or thinking alike, and I don't for a minute claim to have the "IDEA" that will solve the worlds problems,but maybe a start would be less greed and more compassion for others.
Christian leaders do not support violence. We denounce any of the so-called "Christians" who do. Which religion is calling for people to be killed today?
certainly not islam. its not a dichotomy.
Coulter has many examples of calling for violence. According to her new remarks, she is on the side of the religious.
Robertson has called for violence as I mentioned above. Falwell and Dobson (among many others) have loudly supported the Iraq War. I am not quite sure if you reallize it, but violence has been known to happen in them.
; )
''Yeah, we keep hearing about all those Christian bombings all the time. And those Hindus, boy we better watch out for them.''
Lol.... I can't tell if you're being serious or not!? Tamils= Hindu. Christians = The Bush Administration?!?! We better watch out for them, indeed; there are literally millions of Iraqis who have to do just that!
AGAIN the Tamil Tigers have done more suicide bombings than anyone, to the extent they are religious at all they have Hindu roots. You NEVER know what you are talking about.
The Irish Republican Army.
im sorry pbg but your wrong to equate the IRA to religious fundementalists or religious conservatives that line was fed to the world by thatchers propaganda machine to take focus from the real reason for the existance of the IRA , nationalism the IRA targeted police army and protestant PARAMILITARIES and never for religious reasons .Wolfe Tone is one of irish nationalisms most revered martyrs as is Roger Casement both were british protestants im not saying the means of the IRA wasnt terrorism im saying it was never a religious war that was suggested so the world would equate them with muslim fundemenalists apologies for going off topic being a native irish catholic i just had to clear that up
halfaworldaway, you left out my old man's namesake, Robert Emmett. But good list otherwise. ;0)
Hey Lefty,
"When my country takes her place among the nations of the world, then and not until then, let my epitaph be written."
All cats have four legs. My dog has four legs. Therefore my dog is a cat.
Take a logic class, moron.
Try selling this garbage to anyone who lost a loved one in the Federal Building in Oklahoma City. Or to the Unabomber. Or to the IRA - the group that was fought in the longest running operation in the history of the modern British militray, ending only a few short years ago. (And the list goes on...)
Most of the terrorists that we are fighting, at the moment are muslim. No broader statement can be made without a complete disregard for history and facts.
And how you can look at the currrent conflict between the US and the middle east and think that MORE religion (of any stripe) can possibly be the answer is beyond me. This is not a war of christianity vs. islam. You're no better than they are if you believe that. This is a war of common sense vs. religious extremism.
I never said the war is a Christian war. It isn't. And I stand by what I said. Terrorism in the past 20 years has been vast majority Muslim. And there are millions of them who want us dead or converted.
Again, not all Muslims, but millions of Muslims want to kill us. Every time someone offends them there is a riot.
you still need to define terrorism. and you also need to think about why, potentially, 'millions of moslems' might want to kill us.... i mean, you have no evidence apart from your own misconceptions and prejudices to prove that what you're saying is even true, but lets assume it is... could it be that failed decolonization, blind support of Israel and her Apartheid policies, the support of both Iran and Iraq during the 1980s war, the continual bombing of the entire middle east, the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians.... could these all be reasons for some ill feeling toward the west from the people of the middle east? have you even tried to understand the context? no, its much easier to just think of 'them' as 'evil doers' and cast out blanket generalisations, much like Coulters illiterate rhetoric. Your ignorance only perpetuates our problems.
Oh my! Lions and tigers and bears..oh my!
You want them to "think"? On top of the fear?
You cannot support the statement, a bigoted statement at that, that millions of Muslims want us dead or converted.
also the farc rebels in colombia cuban nationalists basque serperatists september 17 (i believe they are called) in greece that japanese cult the name escapes me the KLA in kosovo the list goes on
Since when did the KKK and neo nazi party convert from christianity to muslim?
The KKK and other fringe groups call themselves Christian. No mainstream Christian leaders support them.
(Note: If you want to bring the KKK into this: There are more Democrat former KKK members than Republicans.)
How about current members?
lol. point me to a Muslim in your local community who believes bin Laden is a real Muslim. Show me one who believes Islamic Jihad is a group representative of their beliefs.
Oh, really? Name them. I've already got a list of Republicans. Shoot away.
For the most part (Byrd and whoever else notwithstanding) they were Dixiecrats who switched after LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act. They are now Republicans.
Dogrun:
"Not all muslims are terrorists, but almost all terrorists are muslim."
Where do you get your data? Do you count terrorists in Central and South America? How do you define "terrorist?"
That is bigoted bunk. The Middle East is a political nightmare. When the worst terrorists in the world were Jewish, check out the King David Hotel bombing, the Cairo Haifa train bombings, the SS Patria, the assasinations of Lord Moyne and Folke Burnadotte, no one blamed Judaism. When it was the IRA, no one blamed Catholicism. When it was the disparate European groups left and right but mostly secular no one blamed secularism but now because the political instability is in Islamic regions suddenly bigots want to blame Islam. Do you know what group has done by FAR the most suicide bombings in the entire world? That would be the Tamil Tigers. They are not Islamic. They are a fiercly secular quasi Maoist group in Sri Lanka. You talk like a bigot
they keep sending people to kill us
Iraq sent people to kill us?
Name the Iraqi who has "come here to kill us."
REALLY? Cough up the last time Iraq sent anyone to kill us. Oh you cant, because IT NEVER HAPPENED? What a shock that you dont know what you are talking about. Or is one Arab or one Muslim pretty much like another? Get map for God sake.
"It is spread by sharing the gospel and Christ-like love with people."
And the killing and political murders, of course. You can't have a decent mass of Christian conversion with slavery, mass murder and/or overthrow of pagan governments, followed by a message of "love and peace."
*dies laughing* You fundies crack my (*&@ up, you really do.
"Christianity is never spread by force. It is spread . . . ' ?
Were you asleep during history classes? MayI suggest you pick up The Sword of Constantine by James Carroll.
I'm talking about people who follow Christ. The Crusades were misguided. Although it was mainly about taking back land that the Muslim armies had taken years before.
Although I completely disagree that your remarks on the Crusades prove otherwise, Christianity has often spread by force in other places and killed non-believers and heretics often throughout our history.
The Western conquest and colonization (and forced conversion of much) of Latin America and much of the world was dubiously justified by the patronizing concept of "White Man's Burden" to spread the Gospel to the "savages".
The Spanish Inquisition was not only a brutal effort by the Church and its followers to grab power and land from the Jews.
Just saying they were "misguided" doesn't seem to distinguish these Christian extremists from the Muslim extremists of whom we could also make that very same claim.
"Christianity is never spread by force."
Better check your history...ever hear of the Crusades?
From Wikipedia:
The Crusades were, in part, an outlet for an intense religious piety which rose up in the late 11th century among the lay public. A crusader would, after pronouncing a solemn vow, receive a cross from the hands of the pope or his legates, and was thenceforth considered a "soldier of the Church". This was partly because of the Investiture Controversy, which had started around 1075 and was still on-going during the First Crusade. As both sides of the Investiture Controversy tried to marshal public opinion in their favor, people became personally engaged in a dramatic religious controversy. The result was an awakening of intense Christian piety and public interest in religious affairs. This was further strengthened by religious propaganda, advocating Just War in order to retake the Holy Land—which included Jerusalem (where the death, resurrection and ascension into heaven of Jesus took place according to Christian theology) and Antioch (the first Christian city)—from the Muslims. Further, the remission of sin was a driving factor. This provided any God-fearing men who had committed sins with an irresistible way out of eternal damnation in hell. It was a hotly debated issue throughout the Crusades as what exactly "remission of sin" meant. Most believed that by retaking Jerusalem they would go straight to heaven after death. However, much controversy surrounds exactly what was promised by the popes of the time. One theory was that one had to die fighting for Jerusalem for the remission to apply, which would hew more closely to what Pope Urban II said in his speeches. This meant that if the crusaders were successful, and retook Jerusalem, the survivors would not be given remission. Another theory was that if one reached Jerusalem, one would be relieved of the sins one had committed before the Crusade. Therefore one could still be sentenced to hell for sins committed afterwards.All of these factors were manifested in the overwhelming popular support for the First Crusade and the religious vitality of the 12th century.
Um...... DogRun,
You say that you are a Christian......
If this is the case.....then doesn't the teachings of Christ compell you to do everything in your power and those of every other Christian to work out your differences with everybody else, especially the Muslims? Regardless of what they had done to you.
Isn't also true that as a 'true' Christian you would be compelled by the Bible and all that it stands for in forgiving those that had hurt you or your fellow man?
Or to have understanding and compassion to those that are different than you?
Or do you simply use your religion, like Bush, or fake it, like Ann Coulter only when its convienient?
I'm an agnostic but it would seem to me that if God truely existed, wouldn't he be a bit more angry at any Christian that believes in Him, yet kills or hates in his name than say, the Muslims (since in many Christians eyes they are non-believers, you can't fault them for what they do then, using the illogic of Christian teaching)
Since Christians claim that you must do all of Gods teachings to go to Heaven!
Doesn't this all seem hypocritical to you?
It does to me!
Christianity is never spread by force.
Hello, is anybody home? What the heck do you think the Inquisition was all about? Or the forced conversions of the new world? Christianity was mostly spread by force.
No serious Christian leader today would advocate violence for the purpose of spreading Christianity. Islamic leaders do advocate violence for spreading Islam.
America's wars have nothing to do with spreading Christianity. They are serving whatever national interest our leaders believe.
Name one mainstream Christian who advocates forced conversions. I can name millions of Islamic extremists who do.
You can name millions of mainstream Muslims, huh? I'll settle for considerably less than 1% of that. Name 100. And ... go!
Oh hogwash, islamic leaders? just because Fox news broadcasts the voice of bin Laden does not make him a representive of Islam. In my country New Zealand, the national body that represents Muslims denounces the radical actions of Islamic fundamentalists at every opportunity. These radical terrorists do not represent Islam.
Well there is Hamas, Hezbollah, the Sudan militias to name a few.
Kosovo. There, I named an entire country that advocated doing just that.
didnt that crazy b*****d pat robertson advocate the assasination of chavez ? i have heard that assination could be considered violent
Dogrun:
You claim that no mainstream Christian leader would advocate violence. Please look up Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Oral Roberts, and other televangelicals. Or are you claiming that they are too far to the right to be mainstream? That is not a rhetorical question, I truly would like to hear your answer.
Yeah, tell that to those who were tortured and killed during the Inquisition...
"Christianity is never spread by force. It is spread by sharing the gospel and Christ-like love with people."
I guess the Spanish Inquisition, The Salem Witch Trials and The Crusades were fictonal accounts foisted upon history by heretics. And these were only the really, really awful assaults on human decency committed by your loving Christianity. I won't bother schooling you on how the Catholic Popes, throughout most of history, were considered War Lords who violently crushed anyone suspected of not accepting Christianity into their hearts and minds.
Your ignorance isn't worth commenting upon any further.
cough...Crusades...cough...inquisition....cough...Masacres of Mormons...cough...
Dogrun,
When you say Christianity is never spread by force, do you mean that it never has been spread by force, or that Christians are not currently spreading it by force?
Christianity is never spread by force...
================================
I think a few million Aztecs might disagree with you.
If everyone were a Christian like Timothy McViegh? Jim Jones? Ann Coulter? That is a bigoted take on the issue. I think the world would be a lot better off if they were like Ghandi, but that doesnt mean they all need to be Hindus.
No, if nobody was Muslim, then a tribal Arab leader, upset by America's support of the colonisation of Arab territory by another tribe, the Jews, and the bloody warfare going on, is going to get a bunch of hotheaded young would-be desert warriors to pilot airliners into the World Trade Center, earning eternal honor from the Arab people and a place with their ancestors.
(Of course, without Islam, gettingout of the Dark Ages may have taken many centuries longer, science may have been crippled for more centuries than that--and genghis Khan might have completely destroyed European civilization in the 13th century. But let's not get into that.)
By the way: It would be better if no one was Muslim. We would have a lot fewer terrorists. Dogrun81
That is a stupid and uneducated statement. The religion is not the problem, radical jihadists are the problem. Would you like for Christianity to be wiped out because of a few nuts jobs like the members of Westbobo Church. Hey they attend the funeral of US soldiers yelling and holding signs that say "Pray for more dead soldiers" or 'Thank God for dead soldiers". They call themselves christians as well. You do not condemn a entire religion based on a few extremists.
"Christians" like the God Hates F*gs crowd are idiots. They are a tiny percentage that is denounced by mainstream Christians.
There are millions of Muslims who support suicide bombings and the like. Even if it's only 10% (might be higher, don't know), out of a billion people that's 100 million who support violence against non-Muslims.
"millions of Muslims who support suicide bombings and the like"
Would you care to back up that statement?
I think someone is talking from an orifice and I'm farily certain that it isn't a mouth.
Actually, between them, the kkk, the neonazi's, Dobson's and pat robertson's followers they make up about 20% of all christians, and they all vote republican.
20%, huh? Let's be conservative and say 10% of all Christians are racist hate-mongers. It has to be at least that much, because I can name several specific examples.
Now, with an estimated 2.1 billion Christians in the world, does that mean there are 210 million racist, hate-mongering Christians in the world? I would say that the Muslims have more to be scared about, then.
(Disclaimer: I don't believe any of the crap above, just reversing some of DogRun's logic on him)
"By the way: It would be better if no one was Muslim. We would have a lot fewer terrorists."--dogrun
Ever hear of a place called Northern Ireland? The terrorism there and in England was much more brutal and for a longer period of time than what we have suffered at the hands of Muslim extremist terrorists.
That is just your bigotry talking. I am sure Osama thinks the world would be better if there were no Christians because there would be less countries invading the middle east. Your post was ignorant bigotry.
Everyone seems to keep missing the key point: what dear Ann said, in essence, was that the "ideal American society" (or what she sees as that) would be one where there would be ONLY Christians: no Jews, no Muslims, no Buddhists, no Hindus, no atheists.
She only stated the Christian belief that everyone needs to be saved through Jesus. It would apply to Muslims, Hindus, atheists, or any other religion. No one is suggesting forced conversions to Christianity.
She clearly slipped and implied that Jews are "irreligious" and that Colmes especially was too because he was one of those "stirring up trouble."
When's the last time Coulter went to church? Somebody should ask her.
I am not here to defend Ann's personal spirituality. But to suggest that what she says in anti-Semitic? She says she believes the Old Testament. That is more than the secularists can say.
I don't think she is anti-semitic, but her argument was the basis for a couple thousand years of Christian anti-semitism. I don't blame Jews and other people who understand the history for being offended by Ann's remarks.
No that isnt all she has done. What I might believe isnt the issue. The issue is would I be ARROGANT enough to other people I am better than they are because I believe differently? Ann Coulter is.
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
Rebublicans should know by this time that the strawman arguments made for their homophobia, xenophobia, and evangelical fanaticism have been reduced to ashes as has the presumption to the civil observer that their arguments are sincere to begin with!
Making light of her comments reveals a tolerance for such behavior that allows a democracy to slip into a fascism.
Happy thoughts;
Dan Grady
In honor, Happy Halloween........
What would Halloween be without a post about Coulter, right?
Every day is Halloween when the media gives Skeletor more air time.
In honor of Halloween,shouldn't that be Coulter-geist?
Does it really count if she's just trying to be shocking?
I no longer care what AC says or does. I just don't care.
And you are the liberal that threatens her relevancy and who she fears the most.
Yeah sure because liberals are her audience and if we just ignored her she would go away. Just like Limbaugh did when we ignored him for the first decade.
I love seeing how disgusted all you liberals are about Ann Coulter. It's kind of fun to see how easy it is to offend you over nothing.
typical dogrun you were just torn apart by posters for your ridiculous statements and your only defence ha ha made u mad . when i grow up i wanna be just like u .
So, you're saying you enjoy seeing people upset and angry? What a good christian you are!
These people should never be ignored that is how they become popular and credible. Remember Rush the druggie was mentioned as in the early and mid 90s as a reasonable voice by the msm before the racisim , drugs and hate toward the Clintons. I even remember him being mentioned as a possible 96 candidate after the 92 bush loss.
Agreed, Bob. Your post reminds me of a quote from someone (can't remember the name) during WWII (or shortly thereafter):
They came for the Jews, and no one stood up. They came for the Socialists and Communists and no one stood up. They came for the homosexuals, no one stood up. Then they came for me - and there was no one to stand up.
While I cannot remember the exact quote and the person who should receive the credit for such an outstanding quote, it reminds me that one should stand up in the face of idiocy, stand up when things aren't right.
Keeping quiet (or ignoring, as Tommy asks us to do) did nothing to keep fat a$$ Limbaugh from becoming what he is today - and asking us to ignore will not help keep Coulter's mouth under control.
Tommy's favorite tune: Ignore her and she'll go away bop bop be de da bop bop bop.
i think we need to begin following tommy's "ignore them and they will go away" mantra to other things. your community plagued by a serial killer? send all those detectives home. he'll get tired of it after awhile.
mefirst, Lynn, Solon;
I only commented on what RJC said, which is Ann is basically irrelevant to him anymore, that he could care less what she says - so your beef is with him and you'd better scold him into caring a little more - instead of me, apparently.
I think she has always been irrelevant. We are just here to have some fun at her expense. If she did not engage in such tactics herself, I might even have some sympathy for her.
nice stepford wife costume.
You have to admit Colmes kicked her ass this time:
COLMES: Yeah, that's lovely, Ann. I'm going to move on in spite of yourself, and maybe save you from saying something else that's ridiculous.
Agreed. And he needs to do it more often.
what I said, that Christians believe all of the Old Testament, that we consider our testament the continuation, the messiah you are anticipating in your testament.
I said that the New Testament is the continuation of the Old Testament, that Christians believe that Jews who practice the Old Testament go to Heaven. Our testament is the fast track, because we have the messiah that is the anticipated throughout the Old Testament.
She can't even keep her testaments straight. Anyone who really followed christ's teachings wouldn't screw that simple fact up.
Aha! So it's confirmed! Ann really DOES have testiments, just like I thought.
The adam's apple was a dead giveaway.
That, and the fact that she's got balls suggesting that it's not her statements that are the problem, but the offended responding is the problem. Boy though, switch those roles around and watch what happens!
How is her statement wrong?
Oh, sweet Jesus. She ain't consistant, and you just want to take the coverup as the right statement?
"The point is: This is the same old fight we see all the time with the irreligious trying to stir up trouble with the religious."
No... a contrived fiasco stirred up by Ms. Coulter herself to gain more attention for herself and to push her new book. <Yawn> ...seen it all before. Next...! (Where are the dwarf albino nuns that play bluegrass music?)
Man-o-mann... It never ends.
Why isn't Ann Coulter a nun? She obviously wasn't put on this earth to procreate so that child rearing thing isn't something she has to do. She talks as though she's completely devoted to her religion. She's already got the black wardrobe down. Why isn't she teaching third grade catechism in a Catholic school instead of annoying the adults?
Oh, wait, there's that money grubbing thing...and the fact that she's full of holy bull stuff.
Yeah, that's all we need, AC in a catholic school. They'll have to change the name to St. Mattress if she teaches there!
she is getting more and more ridiculous and hateful. I wonder is she has a drinking problem?
No I just think she is a horrible person.
Yeah, I guess she is one person who is just not a good person. Her hate has no bounds. I still remember what she said to the 9/11 widows, just makes my blood boil.
Jlyons, i never thought someone could have been so cold as she was regarding the 9/11 widows but she was . She is as cold as ice.
You think Coulter is a person??
drinking is the least of her problems
you are right, her hate should not be blamed on drinking, its in her DNA.
The GOP should distance themselves from her hate but they will not, they need hired haters like her to speak the message to the ignorant base the have.
I was actually impressed to see Colmes get a pair of balls. That was nice. Maybe I should start watching him.
Really though, any reaction short of punching Coulter in the face is an under-reaction. I think that debates with her would go much better if the opponent just started spitting on her.
Aside from the cruel, hateful things she gratuitously says about other people, this quote is another reason (like I needed one) to doubt Ann Coulter's religiosity:
"Let's say I go out every night, I meet a guy and have sex with him. Good for me. I'm not married." -Rivera Live 6/7/00
Although I do not profess to be religious (I'm not) I went to Catholic schools for almost my entire education...and I don't once remember them saying it was okay to have as much premarital sex as I wanted. In fact, we were taught that any premarital sex was sinful. Can't say I ever abided by the rules (I didn't) but I'm not professing to be a religious person like Ann Coulter is.
I'd like to know if Ann Coulter's religiosity is something she recently discovered. Has she renounced her sinful, skanky past? Does she no longer have premarital sex? Or does she have special permission from God to have premarital sex? Maybe Alan Colmes could ask her these questions next time. Anybody got his number?
Irony, stop with the sick posts. No one wants to think about Ann Coulter having sex - especially since we all know that she probably looks like a half-eaten pretzel when in the missionary position. ;)
If this "woman" is religious then so's Rudy Giuliani (or is it Judy Ruliani?). Unfortunately what is happening here is that the sneeze has become the head cold because "she's" a great self promoter and the media has a great talent of feeding "her" swamp instead of draining it. It's damned frustrating that the media can't make "her" go away but "her" presence is an indication what passes for legitimate coverage these days. AND, that stupid cocktail dress!!!....
she needs Tim Gunn's guide to fashion. She's only got the little black dress, & she needs 11 more pieces of clothing.
If all I had to worry about was if someone religious was offended by someone else's statements, I'd try to get a life.
Jesus (a Jew) said that damnation awaits those who reject Him (either Jew or Gentile). He said of Himself, "I am the "Way, the Truth and the Life, no one comes to the Father except through Me."
It's a pretty tough sell to say that Jesus was anti-Semitic. And what Coulter said accurately reflects what Jesus taught. If Biblical Christianity (which is in synch with Coulter's statement) is anti-semitic, why are Evangelicals the best friends that Israel has?
The theological ignorance of the left in America is appalling.
ED: The theological ignorance of the left in America is appalling.
Really, Ed...? Try me...
ED: ...why are Evangelicals the best friends that Israel has?
You see, Ed, it's got a lot to do with the coincidental apocalyptic expectations of Jews and Christians. Jews are still awaiting the coming of the messiah and Christians are awaiting the second coming of Christ signaling the apocalypse as predicted in the Book of Revelation. Before that can occur, according to interpretation of Biblical prohecy, Israel must rebuild the Temple. Problem is where the Temple is believed to have stood are now the grounds of Muslim holy sights, the Dome of the Rock and the Al Aksar mosque, controlled by the Palestinians.
So Evangelical Christians are very supportive of Israel against the Palestinians so that Israel may one day recover the former sight of its Temple and rebuild the holy Jewish sanctuary. Evangelical groups have been known to give millions of dollars to Israel. In fact, well known Evangelicals such as the very holy Tom DeLay (whose name you might recognize as the indicted former Republican leader of the House of Representatives who resigned in disgrace) regularly travel to Israel to reaffirm their support for Israel...and to even support those fundamentalist Jews who problematically refused to give up the Jewish "settlements" in Palestinian territory. (After all, God gave them the land...why should they give it up, right?)
However, the Evangelicals believe that when Jesus returns and all that rapture and "end of days" stuff (which is all kind of confusing to me) starts happening the Jews are going to have to accept Jesus as their Savior or they're going to hell.
So...I know a little bit about it (although not as much as you, I am sure) but, honestly, I don't believe one word of Jewish or Christian prophecy. To me it's for people who ignore the natural world in favor of the supernatural and rigidly rely on ancient religious texts for their answers to all things.
I don't know if I would charaterize Ann Coulter's remarks as anti-semitic. To me they sounded insultingly arrogant and unnecessarily spoken. You see, Ann Coulter, has a tendency to purposely draw attention to herself by making outrageous statements. It help her to sell her books.
BTW, many folks on the left do have a theological understanding of Evangelical Christianity. Many of us also understand how organized religion has perverted the message of Jesus and become narrow-minded bastions of intolerance, wealth and political power...not very Christ-like in the view of many.
Enjoyed our chat, Ed...
Irony 101
My point was simply what you affirmed - that AC's remarks were not anti-semitic. But it might be that the Evangelicals are the friends of Israel for historical as well as futuristic reasons - namely that the 'Palestinian state' was the creation of the British after WW1 when the allies defeated the Ottoman Empire (Turks, not Arabs, who were allies of the Germans). There never was a 'Palestinian state' prior to that. Jews had lived there for thousands of years, and the UN carved out for them a narrow slice of land after WW2. But the Arabs, filled with anti-Jewish hatred that was their commonality with the Facists of Europe, tried to exterminate the UN sanctioned Jewish state.
And the refugees of that Islamo-Facist war against the state of Israel in 1949(?) were never helped by their neighbors who had started (and lost) the war that displaced them - thereby creating a breeding ground for anti-Jewish hatred.
Israel is the only democracy in the area. Israel alone in the Mideast is an 'enlightened' state. Arabs live in peace in Israel. There are Arab citizens who enjoy the full privilege of Israeli citizenship, including serving in elected positions. Yet, Libs in the US and Europe, continue to lock-step in their opposition to the only nation in the mideast that shares the values of western enlightenment.
Why is that? I would hope that the left is not anti-semitic, but it certainly supports those who are, and defends Jew-haters.
Just wondering....
Whether Ann Coulter's initial remarks a few weeks ago were anti-semtic is, in my opinion, simply semantics. Her remarks didn't strike me as being motivated by some pathological hatred of Jewish people as a race (although I am sure there may be other definition of racism) and therefore I was not inclined to say her remarks were, technically speaking, anti-semantic.
Regardless, I found her statements arrogantly insulting and deeply offensive...and I am not Jewish or even a religious person. It is one thing to explain differences and distinctions between two religious belief systems in an academic fashion, but Coulter went further than that. She expressed the view that America should be entirely Christian and hammered home the point that Jewish beliefs were wrong. Her remarks were unnecessary to explaining the differences between the two religions if that's all she was trying to do. In reality, what she was actually doing was purposely stirring controvery, as she is often inclined to do, to sell books. She doesn't care if she insults other people or groups of people in the process.
Whether Coulter's remarks qualified, in a technical sense, as anti-semitism is a moot point. The fact is that her remarks were terribly offensive and went well beyond simply drawing an academic difference between Judaisn and Christianity. She and thos who defend her by saying that's all she was trying to do are, in my opinion, lying.
I don't think AC was trying to draw an academic distinction b/t Christianity and Judaism. I think she was trying to enunciate the idea that Christians believe that there is hope for everyone (Jew and Gentile alike) to escape from eternal damnation through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.
A lot of people find that message offensive. It's called the scandal of the cross. Christianity is unqualifiedly pessimistic about the nature of humanity. It describes human nature as depraved and dead, hopelessly lost in sin unless the individual repents and trusts Jesus as his/her Savior.
The message of Christianity is that there is the hope of being 'perfected' through faith in the blood sacrifice and resurrection of Jesus. Works for Jews and Gentiles.
The option is to perfect oneself. Good luck with that one.
There aren't necessarily just two options. There is also the possibility the entire concept is wrong and there are other ways to get to heaven. It is also just as possible that Heaven doesn't even exist. Of course, no one knows for sure - despite people who dubiously claim to know with some degree of certainty.
The historical ignorance of people on the right is appalling.
As has been pointed out this site before, by me and others, AC is repeating an ancient Euroopean Christian heresy, called supercessionism. It holds that Christians are "perfected Jews," and that Jews bear a blood guilt for having rejected Jesus. Along with the libel of deicide (it was actually the Romans who killed Jesus, you know), they formed the theological basis for centuries of persecution, pogroms and, ultimately, the holocaust.
The historical ignorance of people on the right is appalling.
- Conchobhar
Supercessionism is not a heresy in the major streams of Christian thought. It doesn't necessarily teach a "blood guilt" of Jews, (though Luther may have thought that), but is more that the 'New Covenant' of Jeremiah (and Hebrews) replaces or supercedes the Mosaic covenant.
It certainly cannot be saddled with the holocaust. That is the product of national socialism.
"The theological ignorance of the left in America is appalling" -Ed
So what?
Ignoring for the moment the fact that many in the left have a 'better' (i.e. more historically and technically) accurate understanding of 'theology' (presumably you only mean the Judeo-Christian tradition, which, btw, includes Islam), why does it matter what some ridiculous 2000 year old fairy tale says?
Fair bloody dinkum, Cobber.
Can you say Al-Qaeda?
Anyone who thinks that religion, especially the Christian religion, is not important in the thinking and decisions of the leaders of the west is stupid.
Likewise, anyone who ignores the implications of Islam is dangerously ignorant. Osama Bin Laden has engaged the west in a religious war. It won't be won only by the military, but it won't be won through politics and diplomacy either. It is a battle about truth.
Liberals in the west long ago gave up on truth. They think that truth is relative. Thus they are useless in any struggle against Islamofacists.
So, brush up on your Arabic, Aussiebob; if the Liberals carry the day in the west, you're going to need it - to read the Koran.
Liberals in the west long ago gave up on truth. They think that truth is relative. Thus they are useless in any struggle against Islamofacists.
So in your opinion, the only way to defeat "Islamofascists" is to become "Christofascists," and prove to them that our "revealed truth" is truer than their "revealed truth." This would be done, of course, by murdering more of them, which we have the technological capability of doing, than they can murder of us. The fact that, in so doing, we will turn the rest (90%? 99%?) of the Muslim world into "Islamofascists" and create the war of cultures which is Osama's fondest dream, never seems to occur to you.
A number of people in this thread have mentioned Northern Ireland in relation to terrorism. They have named the IRA, but not the UDA, LVF, UVF, Red Hand Commando. Look'em up. One might accurately, if incompletely, describe Ulster as the last battlefield of the religious wars of the 15th-17th Centuries. One of the lasting causes was the "truth" of the fundamentalist Protestants that Catholics were anathema to God and didn't even deserve life, never mind civil rights. They proudly justified denial of those rights, and murder of Catholics (even children in their beds) by reference to Deuteronomy (a fascist screed, at least in part, if there ever was one).
"Liberal relativism," as I see it, is the knowledge of the rational person that he can't see the whole picture, and that he shouldn't be so sure that he has the truth nailed down. Those of you "people of faith" who like to consider us immoral and blindy trust, childlike, your leaders' interpretation of medieval translations of ancient scrollls would do well to remember that, to take just one example, it wasn't until some 150 years ago that most Christian sects discovered the moral repugncy of chattel slavery. Islam still hasn't. Of course, slavery is accepted in both "Holy" Books, isn't it?
Personally I think that becoming like our enemies in order to defeat them is cowardly and a betrayal of all this country is supposed to stand for. Check out my reference to George Washington and the Continental Congress somewhere further on in this thread. I posted it yesterday.
Long live Patrick Henry, and Kyl can kiss my hyphenated uss.
Conchobar;
"So in your opinion, the only way to defeat "Islamofascists" is to become "Christofascists," and prove to them that our "revealed truth" is truer than their "revealed truth." This would be done, of course, by murdering more of them..."
You are incredibly creative. That is a stunning straw man. Too bad it has no reality in it.
No. It isn't far fetched at all. War is probably the most obvious example of "might makes right" thinking. Conchobar is just connecting two common aspects of that reasoning we have all seen with regards to Iraq together to make a point.
Just to clear things up: Do you think we can defeat terrorism militarily? Do you think we are at war with Islam?
" . . . what Coulter said accurately reflects what Jesus taught. If Biblical Christianity (which is in synch with Coulter's statement) is anti-semitic, why are Evangelicals the best friends that Israel has?
The theological ignorance of the left in America is appalling."
- edrossinoelwein9669
Oy vey! With friends like these . . . . This example of the theological wisdom of the (self)right(teous) is thoroughly depressing!
There ain't much of Christ in this dame
She likes mugging for money and fame
Widows, orphans, the poor
At society's door
Care of them shows who's spiritually sane.
Whenever Coulter decides to act like a tolerant Christian maybe someone will listen to her but as long as she and Bush purport to be religious and promote wars, bomb pregnant women and torture people without trial, they will burn in H-E-L-L for eternity!
Ah Ann, makes me think of this song everytime she opens her mouth.
[link to oneleft.com]
Coulter said: "I gave a beautiful description of the Old Testament and the New Testament, but it's very frightening to secularists."
Coulter is clearly talking about some OTHER Old Testament and New Testament if she "...gave a beautiful description" of them.
Does this crazy "woman" really think the religous need help from we who are not religous to make trouble? And why is it that those who think there really is a white haired guy in the sky watching this mess are so hateful of those who have the guts to admit we have no idea how the universe came to be? Why does Ann not just shut up and let her all powerful sky grandpa take care of things.
Since it is good to know what bias a source might have, it is worth noting that
Coulter is a nut job. She fires for effect to advance and agenda, which is not to praise the merits of the right wing - she knows that is impossible, She just wants to slime the left and sell books. She is a fraud of the worst order.
COLMES: "Yeah, that's lovely, Ann. I'm going to move on in spite of yourself, and maybe save you from saying something else that's ridiculous."
Yeah! Maybe he's finally developing a set.