Ann Coulter

Rod, let me begin by saying that I agree with you about Ann Coulter: I believe that political conservatism is (to many) controversial enough without Ann's going out of her way to create a scandal, and I believe the current political climate is vitriolic enough without her grandstanding.

However -- and you surely knew that adverb was coming -- I have two points, one minor, one quite substantive.

First, I've read elsewhere that NRO ended its relationship with Ann Coulter, not because of the content of the article to which you refer, but because of her unprofessional conduct that followed it.

More importantly, I would ask that you consider your own writing with regard to charity, to consider the possibility that our shared Christian duty to love people hasn't been guiding your writing, at least not fully, and at least not recently.

You have recently insinuated (twice) that the Republican base is homophobic for holding the same position on redefining marriage as you do. I've wondered aloud how you could know that, and if you don't know that, how Christian charity could permit you to presume the worst about us.

You have since insinuated that, compared to Roman Catholicism, the Eastern Orthodox church is a "serious place" that has more competently balanced masculine and feminine spirituality. As a Southern Baptist, I'm not going to insert myself into a debate over the validity of such a charge, but anyone could have predicted the friction that resulted from the charge. Instead of addressing the questions and criticisms of those who found the claim ridiculous, you called a few of them names and banned one from commenting ever again.

Am I perfect on this count of charity and civility? Certainly not. Is this an instance of the skeptical pot calling the crunchy kettle black? Probably.

Nevertheless, I believe you're driving people to lose respect for you as a commentator and as a person.>

So, in other words, being a Christian means, at least in part...feeling better about ourselves by being nice to everybody?

Curious: Being a Christian means hating sin but loving the sinner (and recognizing oneself as a sinner, too). Loving means willing the Good for another person, not necessarily "being nice".

Love can be quite consistent with spirited polemics. But the goal is to dissuade or convince the other person of his error, not to destroy him personally.

Since we are all sinners, no one can achieve this balance all the time. You can slice up Rod's writings or anyone else's on that score. But I think his post here is a wise one, and something to keep particularly in mind in a medium like the internet, where we don't generally see or know the persons we argue with and thus can be powerfully tempted toward cruelty and personal destruction.>

Or chivalrous?>

Bubba, I think you consistently misread my writing, with an eye toward the worst possible interpretation. As I made explicitly clear in the discussion thread, I was talking about a particular parish, not Roman Catholicism itself, as not being a serious place for spiritual growth. Secondly, as I made clear in my posts about the president and other GOPers exploiting religious conservatives (like me) with their gay marriage stance, I believe that absent any kind of attempt to explain why traditional marriage ought to be privileged in law and protected by a constitutional amendment, it is not hard to conclude that GOP election strategists are trying to play off of what anti-gay prejudices exist in the base. Why is that an unreasonable conclusion?>

Rod, I extend my sincere apologies for misunderstanding your point in the discussion about masculinity. Nevertheless, I'm not sure your response to Diane and others was entirely helpful.


About the charge of homophobia, you write, "absent any kind of attempt to explain why traditional marriage ought to be privileged in law and protected by a constitutional amendment, it is not hard to conclude that GOP election strategists are trying to play off of what anti-gay prejudices exist in the base. Why is that an unreasonable conclusion?"

Let me count the ways for you.

1) The claim that there hasn't been "any kind of attempt to explain why traditional marriage ought to be privileged in law and protected by a constitutional amendment" is simply untrue. Consider Bush's radio address from earlier this month:

"Marriage is the most enduring and important human institution, honored and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith. Ages of experience have taught us that the commitment of a husband and a wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society. Marriage cannot be cut off from its cultural, religious, and natural roots without weakening this good influence on society. Government, by recognizing and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all."

Criticize this as glib if you want, but it's wrong to act as statements like this aren't being made at all.

2) Even granting the premise, the conclusion you draw isn't reasonable. If a politician stumps for X without making principled arguments for X, you CANNOT logically conclude that those who support the politicians and/or X themselves have no principled arguments for their position. "The politicians' PR campaign has no substance" does not logically lead to "their constituents are bigots."

3) I believe you would not tolerate people drawing similar conclusions about you. On June 2nd, you wrote in a comment that you would try that day to post "an outline of [your] reasons for opposing gay marriage." I admit I could have missed it, but I haven't seen that outline.

Well then: absent any kind of attempt to explain why traditional marriage ought to be privileged in law and protected by a constitutional amendment, it is not hard to conclude that your position is based on anti-gay prejudice. Why is that an unreasonable conclusion?

In this case, I wouldn't be divining your bigotry or lack thereof from the behavior of politicians; I would be doing so from your behavior, namely, your failure to outline your defense of traditional marriage.

I have little doubt that you would dismiss such a charge as a cheap, emotional slur, but you think that applying the same charge to the GOP base for things over which they have little to no control (i.e., whether the GOP leadership pontificates about their positions) is reasonable.

Your complaint about Ann Coulter is completely valid, but it's seems to me that you're being uncharitable toward the GOP base. I think you're being illogical in making your uncharitable presumption, and I suspect that you would hypocritically reject others' making similar presumptions about you.>

I have to admit that I like Ann. As a mass movement, some conservatives have to engage in the same kind of raucous, smash-mouth politics as liberals or we just appear to be a bunch of pencil-neck geeks and that is not a winning image.

Liberals like to portray themselves as smart, reasonable people but look how revered Hunter S. Thompson was and the attention that he gathered for liberal positions. Thompson was an uncouth thug who abused people in the most dispicable ways.

Ann is actually far more polite in her criticisms than Hunter and a far more attractive and reasonable person. She may make simplistic claims like: treason, slander, or godless but they are generally well supported positions.

Certainly, left-wingers have been soft on communist totalitarians. Cuba anybody? Or remember if you will the hysteria surrounding Reagan's calling the Soviet Union an "evil empire." Guess who was right?

Slander? When do we ever see conservatives portrayed reasonably in the liberal media? Ever feel like your views are distorted so much that they appear unappealing to you? I do.

Godless? While I am certain there are sincere religious people who are religious, the average predjudice I experience in blue state America against religous belief gives me a pretty good idea of how most liberals approach religion. Couple that with the fact that liberal religious groups seem more interested in a neo-marxist ideal of material utopia than salvation for the immortal soul and godless doesn't seem too far off.

Too many liberals talk out of both sides of their mouths too much of the time. Somebody needs to call them on it. Having a blonde, bombshell do it just drives them nuts.>

Two points: First, according to in-depth accounts and flipping through Coulter's book--she was referring to 4 9-11 widows who have made themselves into political hacks in favor of everything radically liberal--not all 9-11 widows (But the liberal media is doing its usual Big Lie technique to smear her as having attacked ALL 9-11 widows).
Second only a few days ago Sen. Ted Kennedy (the moral giant of Chappaquidick) attacked anyone that is not on the pro-gay bandwagon with a list of vitriolic insults-BUT that is OK and was reported without a ripple of dissent from the liberally twisted media guardians of what is proper in political debate.>

Rod, this entry is extraordinary. If the "love of people" guides your writing, then why do you not extend such love, or even a modicum of respect, to your friend Jonah Goldberg by seriously engaging his arguments, instead of calling them "boring" (as you did on the crunchy con blog)?

Why do you presume that so many of fellow conservatives -- the vast majority even -- are moral idiots?

Why do you *ban* commenters who don't buy the assumptions on which you base your theses (e.g. "Orthodoxy is more masculine than catholicism"), instead of taking their points?>

Is this America's version of the "Protocols" by chance? Need to spread that love around?>

I get tired of hearing from conservatives that there are plenty of people on the Left that are just as bad as Ann Coulter. Please name just one because I can't find any who are as vile and hateful as she is. Give me the liberal equivalent of Coulter saying that torture should be a televised sport or that we should drop daisycutters randomly on Middle Eastern cities or that we should nuke North Korea "for fun". Tell me who on the Left says anything similar to that.
As for Siliconvalleysteve I don't even know where to begin on his comments. Coulter has "well supported positions"? You can't really be serious. Have you ever read anything she has published? It's all baseless accusations and slander.
As for the Left supporting totalitarianism have you forgotten how conservatives supported every right-wing thug regime that agreed to be our ally? They supported the South African apartheid regime, all the Central and South American dictatorships, the Shah, Mobuto of Zaire. The list goes on and on.
Plus Siliconvalleysteve seems to think that Blue State Christians somehow aren't "real" Christians like the Red State Christians because we want to make a "utopia" here on earth and don't care about saving souls. Uhh, not quite Steve. You see, we care about BOTH the body and soul. (Try reading the book of James instead of listening to Rush Limbaugh and you'll know what I am talking about.)>

I thought libwuls were too PC to have any equivalent of the Antie Annie - n'est-ce pas?>

Sensationalism like Coulter's, no matter its stripe, belongs next to the National Enquirer and other such *respectable* fare in the grocery checkout lanes.

Though quite liberal on most issues, I don't really listen to the liberal pundits, although Michael Moore makes some good use of humor, and I consider myself smart enough to see through to what's real in his work and what's not. Used to laugh my head off at Rush Limbaugh, until I realized there were people taking him seriously, which sickened me.

I tend to agree with Clyde that this country may be on the verge of another conservative/liberal split, which could be the end. I doubt this polarization process can be either contained or made healthy. Perhaps there'll be some sort of surprise intellectual renaissance in which smash-mouthers like Ms. Coulter would find themselves laughed out of the mass media. Not holding my breath, but it's nice to dream.>

"9/11 victims wanted the entire country to marinate in their exquisite personal agony."

Ann Coulter

If the right wingers are going to agree with Ms. Coulter's assessments and applaud her writings -- I hope I never hear them again cry out about 911 and use it as their excuse to continue their war campaigning and invasions, abridgement of civil rights, and obsessing and excessing re: security, or lack thereof -- absolutely no one has wanted this country to marinate in all things 911 more than this administration and its supporters, i.e., the Annie Coulters of this country. HYPOCRITES>

Maybe it was becoming a father, maybe it was 9/11, maybe it was writing a book, or maybe it was all of these things, as well as beginning to mature in my Christian faith, that made me realize how -- how to put this? -- fragile all things human are. It didn't make me any less critical, I don't think, but it did make me think about how to criticize.

In the spirit of what you've written, Rod, let me tell you how lovely and insightful I found that last paragraph. I enjoy hearing about such moments of self-recognition and personal growth, and I think people (self included) can learn a lot from reading and considering them. Thank you for having written it.>

I, too, am quite liberal on most issues, but find the posturings on BOTH the right and left to be downright silly, and am more offended that the media give these people credibility by having them on the air constantly.

I've always been curious about those who pass for our political pundits, just how much of the crap they spout they actually believe.>

I've seen Ann Coulter in person and she is right. I work in Higher Education and the things she has said about the liberal agenda at some schools I've worked at is correct.

Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus. And yes, there is an incideous liberal agenda as well.>

Ann Coulter, Michael Savage and a bunch of others on the right, Michael Moore, the commentators at the Daily Kos and others on the left. They are all products of our debased pop "culture," manufacturing continuous hysteria about often trivial matters.

Such noise is not worthy of serious consideration by intelligent people, much less by Christians.>

"I get tired of hearing from conservatives that there are plenty of people on the Left that are just as bad as Ann Coulter. Please name just one because I can't find any who are as vile and hateful as she is."

Maureen Dowd, Bill Maher, Al Franken, Ted Rall, and Michael Moore all leap instantly to mind.

Of course, I kinda like Al Franken, and used to like Michael Moore, so perhaps "bad" is the wrong word, but they are equally polemical and given to making extreme and outrageous statements. The difference is that Coulter's stuff also has a lot of substantive content to go along with the zingers.>

Does Con really believe that Al Franken is a liberal Ann Coulter?

Al has never come close to Ann's level of viciousness, nastiness, and hatefulness. Sure, he doesn't agree with them on a lot of things, but he's a pretty mellow guy, a far cry from Ann's devil-possessed persona. For some reason, Con and his fellow Republicans seem to think that because someone holds different opinions, they must be nasty people.

It's a shame he has to smear a nice guy like Franken by comparing him to Coulter.>

"and the things she has said about the liberal agenda at some schools I've worked at is correct..."

The liberals have an agenda;
The gays have an agenda;
The Muslims have an agenda;
The Mexicans have an agenda;
The Hawaiians have an agenda;

Who else has an agenda? Or maybe we should ask who amongst us does NOT have an agenda.

Some were adament that we needed dialogue regarding the Muslim agenda. I think it may be more pertinent to discuss the so called liberal agenda?

Now that apparently we're the next threat or "problem" to deal with.

Then I hope to go on to the agenda to deal with the agenda, okay?>

Pauli, she went after the widows that didn't agree with her, not the widows that became outspoken politically. She has no problem with Bush-supporters using their widowhood for public gain.>

Coulter took a valid point: That the 9/11 widows should not be above criticism when they make statements on national policy...then marinated it in pure bile. Her crass, venomous, puerile personal screed robbed her of any claim to moral authorityon this issue, and certainly leaves me doubting her intellectual credibility, as well. If an hysterical attack on the character of the widows is the best Coulter can produce as a defense of her position, I certainly don't see any reason to believe she has much intellectual force behind her.

The sad degeneration of American political discourse is anchored in the self-righteous belief that anyone who disagrees with you is not just mistaken, but utterly evil.>

I get tired of hearing from conservatives that there are plenty of people on the Left that are just as bad as Ann Coulter. Please name just one because I can't find any who are as vile and hateful as she is.

A few months ago syndicated columnist Cathy Young (who is not 1/2 as smart as she thinks she is), in defending against the notion that the hate media is 99.99% far right, mentioned a quote from (drum roll) Garrison Keillor. No, I am not kidding.


Here is a link to Cathy Young's op-ed which tries in vain to convince the reader that the hate media is 50/50 between left and right, versus 99.99% far right. She tries in vain to deny the reality of what I'd call the Strategic Industrial Hate Media Complex.

http://www.reason.com/cy/cy122705.shtml

After Coulter's latest media-based hate crime, I wonder if Ms. Young (and other conservatives) is ready to admit how wrong she was (is) on denying the reality of the far right hate media machine.

Naaaaah.>

Dear Deacon John,

You said: "Ted Kennedy ... (I snipped out your own vitriol) attacked anyone that is not on the pro-gay bandwagon with a list of vitriolic insults-BUT that is OK"

Well EXCUUUUUUSE me!. I seem to recall the anit-gay crowd comparing gay marriage to (and I quote) beastiality, necrophilia, child molestation, rape, cannabalism, incest, polygamy, pornography and prostitution.

Believe me, pro-equality people have NO monopoly on vitriolic insults.>

I have long concluded that 'crunchy conservatism,' like 'compassionate conservatism' is just another oxymoron.

Franklin Evans and others, well done on exposing this reality.

If there really was such a thing as 'crunchy cons,' they would be up in arms that Coulter has by her words and deeds defiled the teachings of Jesus, as well as the very cross that she wears on the cover of her latest work of hate.>

'The sad degeneration of American political discourse is anchored in the self-righteous belief that anyone who disagrees with you is not just mistaken, but utterly evil.'

Thank you, revinpitts, for a new .sig line. This is a perfect description of the current level of political discourse.>

Ms. Reilly, I must confess two things.

1) I am totally unsure what your remark to me means. Are you agreeing with my assessments, or do you believe I'm just another misguided liberal clouding the issues? Or something in between, perhaps? I am trying to avoid guessing.

2) I did not express, or even hint, that I actually and sincerely agree with your criticism of Mr. Dreher, especially in his reaction to Mr. Goldberg. For that, I apologize.

My bottom line is and always will be that demagogues are the least likely people to have an understanding, or to teach that understanding, of the principles of our republic. I hope you'll allow me to claim some moral standing on this, because I see very few currently in power who have this understanding, and that includes both sides of the line.>

All this back and forth about the vitriol in public discourse reminds me of an ancient saying of the Buddha.

Hatred does not cease by hatred. Hatred ceases by love alone. This is an ancient and eternal law.

It seems to me that Christ and the Apostles expressed much the same idea. Why is this so hard to practice, do you think?>

Ron: Part of my problem with Coulter s Scorched Earth School of Commentary is that it smacks of fascism. "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity, are some of the hallmarks of a fascist: the use of violence to impose views on others, dehumanizing and scapegoating the enemy , abandonment of any consistent ideology in a drive for state control.

Fascism has several flavors and does not discriminate between the political Left or the Right it is an equal opportunity hater and exploiter. I think we should keep fascism under consideration when we read comments like the Coulter quote above.>

Who cares what side of the political spectrum you're on? Your political sway should NEVER dictate your personal beliefs!

I'm so sick of people constantly knocking on whatever party because that personal particular beliefs don't go along with the herd's. It's sickening and sad that a lot of people have lost their sense of individuality.>

OK,

I mentioned Hunter S. Thompson before. How about adding Ward Churchill and Noam Chomsky.>

When you have our own people who call for the bombing of buildings in New York or in San Francisco -- is it any wonder why we have the conspiracy theorists sounding more credible everyday?

I would like to know if the release of her book is a propaganda tool.>

I have not had the opportunity to read any of her work, but in hearing her opinions,I gather she is quite the intellectual. I can't say I disagree with her on many of her points.I know she calls herself a Christian, you would think that as intuitive as she seems to be she would see that pride in the intellect was lucifers demise...Was it not? What she is cultivating doesn't seem to be "good fruit", which is what you should see from those who call themselves Christians.>

I disagree, Rod. If Al Franken wore even half the make-up Ann Coulter wears, exposing even half as much of himself to the world as she does, he'd still be twice as easy on the eyes.

And Jane Fonda is, was and always will be more attractive. But perhaps Coulter, too, will someday be refused service by a red-blooded American male who cares more about what she's said (perhaps about someone he knows) than about how she used to look in a miniskirt.>

Ann is a mess, and most of the time cannot even get her facts straight. She is pathetic.>

Jonathan Carpenter...

I am no fan of Bobby Byrd, the "Prince of Pork." I find him frequently pompous. He is hardly viewed as a champion of liberalism.

But, just yesterday, I heard him express his regret over his KKK involvement, and shame over his vote against the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
I am old enough to remember the crticisms that were leveled against him at that time. But, those acts were more than forty years in the past and he has renounced them, since.

You may argue he isn't sincere in those renunciations but that would hardly make him a liberal. I'm not in a position to know the truth about what is in his heart (nor are you). But I have never heard Ann Coulter express regret for any of the outrageous things she has said or written.

Does this mean that mean that conservatives are meaner than liberals? Nope.

I have been increasingly disgusted and wearied by the harangues of both sides.>

I have NEVER heard someone say the president should be shot.

I have heard people say he and the vice prosident should be impeaced, convicted and sent to prison.

I'm one of them.>

And as far as dragging down debate, I've lost track of the liberal Hollywood, media, and political who have advocated in one way or another (through sarcasm or open wishes) that someone should shoot the President (In fact a liberal-again- was on TV only a few weeks ago suggesting such).

Excuse me, "Deacon John M. Bresnahan," but have any of these liberals got NAMES?

And I would be curious to know, if you care to share, what church you are a "Deacon" of, in what church were you ordained, etc.>

The left don't need Ann to tell them who to hate. Just live in a city with a Pacifica radio outlet. Lots of hate especially on pledge weeks.

I listen for entertainment.>

I used to listen to KFI for the entertainment, but then they got so obnoxious that they drove me to listen to Pacifica.>

Several posters here have yet to back up their claims that liberal pundits are as hateful and nasty as Coulter (Rod included). What liberal voice, embraced by the left as Coulter is on the right, has said or done anything comparable to Coulter's vitriol?

She proclaimed that 911 widows were happy their husbands died, that Supreme Court justices should be fed rat poison, that non-Christians should be murdered, and the NY Times building bombed.

A few names have been mentioned, but none are coparable to Coulter. Maureen Dowd has never been so nasty. Neither has Michael Moore. And Bill Maher isn't even a liberal. So who are these liberal Coulters?>

In fact, if we are bombed who's to say she's not responsible in more than one way. Maybe she actually practices what she preaches.>

Amen.>

Everyone is an individual. We can not be placed in either a box called "conservative" or the box called "liberal."
I agree with and disagree with both Republicans and Democrats on certain subjects.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. If we allow a war monger person to have free reign, we would be at war all the time and hated by most of the world. hmmmmm. To be fair, some democrats who were called "liberals" got us deep in the Vietnam war which was a waste of life and money.
If the conservatives had their way, slavery would have gone on in America for quite a few more years.
I object to abortion on demand but no Republican will get Roe vs Wade reversed no matter how much they promise to do it. I think abortion is cold blooded murder and barbaric of the worst kind.
I object to the belief that "justice is blind." It is not and never will be blind anywhere on Earth. Therefore, we must be careful with the death penalty.
Being so blinded by patriotism and your own interpretation of the Bible is ignorant. Blinded by patriotism is what got us into Iraq. Some seem to think that Republicans are God's choosen people. Some Republicans decieve, lie, and steal just as some Democrats do.>

"They will know we are Chrsitians by our love"


What does that say about Ms. Coulter?>

I'm a liberal - and I believe in Allah - that's not a different religion - its Arabic for God. I've read and continue to read the Bible and other Hag Nammadi gospels. Most non-Muslism don't know that Islam believes in and builds upon the Prophets of the Old Testament and the teachings of Jesus.
This is not an instructional diatriabe about Islam. Its merely an extended hand at what I see as intolerance in all modern day "religions" which have nothing to do with the teachings of the respective religions.
I was listening to a local radio station which proclaims "liberals hate it" and was aghast at what the callers and the hosts said about "them people" as if anyone who is not the station hosts / workers and their listeners (which is, based upon the marketing schematics available from their marketing department - white, 28 - 50, "middle-class", some college education, conservative politics, shop at Wal-Mart, etc.)
What shocked me was the intolerance and hate spewed over the airwaves - all citing the Bible, mind you, and then, two successive adverts for "Christian" supporters - one for a "faith-based" school, another for a "evangelical" place of worship.
This - preaching the politics of hate and intolerance - does no one a stitch of good.
All religions - Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, Christianity, etc. - all preach the same ethos: love thy neighbor; protect the innocent; feed the hungry; take care of the blemish in your own soul before you attack the blemish in your neighbor / enemy.
Hate and intolerance does no one any good. Ann Coulter is merely symptomatic of a deeper problem: intolerance is everywhere within every "faith." True people of the Book need to lock arms - regardless of how we pray to God / Yahweh / Allah - and live the word in faith and tell these people "YOU ARE NOT US! You are NOT people of faith!"
As written in the Bible, when these people get to the hereafter, God will see them and say "As you did not know my brother on earth, I do not know you now." (Forgive me for the lack of an accurate quote...)
Peace>

Ann Coulter stands for what Christianity does, i.e. exclusivity, judgmentalism and hatred. Please keep covering her, as it lets Agnostics, Atheists, Pagans, Jews and Muslims know who they up against. Go Annie Go !!!>

Too bad you sad saps don't know the hard meaning of christianity - you also don't know the difference between cutting edge commentary and humor or how to combine them both.

You think tolerance is life's blood - but Christianity, based on love, fights for the good, not for the all. All includes evil and what is destructive. Jesus challenged and destroyed some of what was believed by Jews at the time - Yes, he was a Jew and so were many of his followers until they realized his message was different from what most Jews taught.

It's sad that someone who thinks they can comment on an author has not read that authors organized works - her books. It's like making commentary in a research class and saying your term paper was written by talking to others who have an opinion, only some of whom read the author's works and reading a chapter hear or there or quoting out of context was may have been said by the author - great practice - doesn't in school, doesn't work here - though the lemmings eat it up thinking it is actual thought. You can like or not like Ann, but at least know what you are talking about.>

Liz:

You speak truth and understanding. Something we all need. As I read many comments in this and other threads, I'm saddened by the apologists for Ann Coulter due, apparently, to her "Christian" label. I'm similarly saddened by similar apologists on other sites by those claiming to follow the teachings of the Prophet but then espouse hate and violence.
We are in dangerous time and need MORE not LESS understanding, tolerance, and compassion.
Peace>

Ms. Coulter confuses me, to be perfectly honest. I have heard her called a Christian, indeed, but her columns are so vitriolic and mean-spirited that I cannot help but remember our Saviour's commands to "resist not evil", "turn the other cheek", and most importantly, "love thy neighbor".
I cannot know what is really in her heart, but even if she does not believe that we should really invade every country that does not practice Christianity, it is inexcusable to say such things. Grabbing for attention does not exonerate her behaviour.
But who are we to judge? Let him who is without sin throw the first stone at Ms. Coulter.>

I've started a thread on the Beliefnet U.S. Politics Board entitled "Crunchy Con v. Anne Coulter"

I thoroughly agree that Anne Coulter does NOT represent the mainstream conservative Christian (though there are those liberals who THINK she does) and that Coulter and her ilk on BOTH the right and the left seem to be setting the tone for debate. The other side is THE ENEMY, and us TRUE BELIEVERS can't compromise with THE ENEMY and still be true to our faith.

So if you are dealing with GODLESS LIBERALS or NEOCON CRIMINALS how can you even attempt to discourse and compromise?

And the result? We see it everyday. Republicans calling those who disagree with the war effort as "disloyal." Democrats labelling the Administration as a "gang of criminals."

But I guess being polarized means not having to be civil...

Come visit the debate on the U.S. Politics board at ">http://www.beliefnet.com/boards/message_list.asp?discussionID=523359>

Do liberal pundits sock it to conservatives? Actually, no. They sock it to the current crop of reactionaries and warhawks occupying the halls of power - people who could by no definition be called conservative.
But let that pass. The difference between liberal pundits and Coulter is not that she does it better but that she calls for the death and destruction of those whom she regards as liberal. Without even getting into the fact that very few liberals in any way resemble the stereotyped charicature she paints, ask yourself whether Michael Moore - perhaps the most frequently named and vociferously hated leftish personality on the scene - has ever called for the death of Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, et al. And if you can't think of any occasion, then perhaps it would be appropriate, Mr. Crunchy, to acknowledge that Coulter is NOT a more skillful player at political punditry, but a hatemonger of exactly the same stripe as any fanatic Islamic cleric calling for jihad against Israel and America.>

Regarding Ann Coulter - I've read her books, including GODLESS, and yes, she writes in a hyperbolic acerbic manner, which I, being a Christian, enjoy immensely. Most of the comments here are anti-Coulter (the politically correct position of feeling people), but there is very little expositing as to why her views are incorrect. Her books didn't convince me of her positions, I was already there, and that came about starting with the infamous borking of Judge Bork. Then came Anita Hill. And evolution has always seemed like hooey (Inherit the Wind, indeed). The teacher unions prevent kids from getting better educations (union leadership care only bout the greenbacks). Isn't abortion murder? How can the poor people receive tax cuts when the top 50 percent of earners pay 99.99 percent of the taxes? The Willie Horton ad (and the James Byrd ad) was liberalism at its most hideous. And on and on. Those are all Ann Coulter positions. Let's here why they're wrong.>

Ron, Your Ann Coulter article is just terrific. I discovered it after reading the Coulter interview, also on beliefnet, a website I hadn't discovered until today.

The Coulter interview is also terrific.

I'll admit to being stunned by a few of the comments above mine.... Where is all this hatred coming from? Certainly not your writing.

I do believe there are a lot of folks trolling the Internet looking for a virtual fight. Years before the Internet these folks probably trolled bars and honkytonks.

At any rate, I've bookmarked this site and I'll try to become a regular visitor.....>

I think that Ann Coulter is nothing more than a goldigger. She has learned a new way to make a buck and denegrate the Christian Faith. She calls herself a Christian...I think not.>

Rod,

I have observed that in the past few years that journalists, politicians,and other media commentators, (overwhelmingly of the Liberal type), have never, ever been concerned about the meanspirited, vile liberal invective directed at conservatives, and especially evangeical Christians during the 80's and 90's. The hated-filled tirades of liberals during those decades were never considered "harmful to America", dangerous, or bigoted. In fact, liberals seemed to revel in trying to outdo one another in their constant attacks on Christians and conservatives. Recall the vile treatment Robert Bork and Rev. Jerry Falwell received. Where was their outrage then? It is undeniable that an all out assault on Christianity, and a war for control of our children's minds by evil people have intensified in recent years.

But, curiously, since conservatives began fighting back, and giving liberals a taste of their own medicine, (beginning with Rush Limbaugh), conservative pundits are accused of "hateful, vile conduct which is "harmful for America".
Some of Ann's more "controversial" comments pale in comparison to some past and present liberal attacks on cosnservatives and Christians.

Remember, there is a culture war being waged in this country, and this is not a time for Christian pundits to be meek and mild. Ann Coulter, Michael Savage, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Laura Inghram, and all the other conservative pundits have a right to be angry at all the harm liberalism has done to this country, and I thank God for them. They inform and inspire us to action.>

Rod,

I admire Ann Coulter as a person, lawyer, conservative advocate, journalist, and Christian. You called her "thin, loud mouth, WASP". I apologize if I misinterpreted your comment, but by calling her eveb a "WASP", you allegedly did the exact thing that you accuse Ann of doing.

I agree with and appreciate those who have commented on your article. There is a culture war. We have liberal religious leaders and politicans who advocate Gay marriages. Liberal judges are doing their best to get rid of anything which contains the words God, church, Christ, or Ten Commandments in it. Liberal politicans yell about President's positions and policies on terrorism, stem-cell research, national intelligence, the national dept, tax cuts, and his alleged lies. Nevetheless, they support Cindy Sheean who has disgraced your son's decision to fight for his Country and his mother's freedom. Her son gave his life, so she could to do the outragous and totally disrepsectful things she has done. What is wrong with this picture? She and other Liberal ARE GODLESS.

I am tired of being political correct and watching liberals bash Christianity and America. Currently, the weathest Senators and Representatives are Liberal. Why aren't they supporting faith based programs that help the poor at the grass roots level? This would be the Christian thing to do. Why doesn't Kerry's wife bring her companies back to America, so more people can have jobs? I did not see them give back their tax refund, which the complained about. Afterall, they claim to Christians. Pres. Bush and VP Cheney donated more moneh to Katrina and to the 9/11 victims than any other government offical 99% of American citizens.

Conservative Christians have remained silent for too long. Christians must speak out and defend Christianity, the Church, the Jewsish people and Isreal, and our freedom. Freedom is never free. I thank God for Ann Coulter. She has tolerated pies in the face, threats on her life, violent acts, bashing in the media, etc... Everyone complains about Ann, yet her books are best sellers. She is correct. The Liberal Left who is fighting to take over America is Godless.>

Coulter is a untalented twat who has found a gimmick that makes her tons of money. Nothing she says should be taken seriously. And I don't want Christian politicians, or any type of religious politicians. Religion has no place in politics. I'll worry about my soul, and let the government worry about my safety.>

I love and respect Ann Coulter and am delighted to have her fighting for our country and my right to practice my faith unmolested by aggressive Leftists who work tirelessly to portray Christians as mindless bigots and the scourge of the Republic. Christians were the founders of our country, the defenders of our country, and the ones who died to end slavery, etc.

The Left is in collusion with Muslims by their excuses for Jihadism and, via their handmaidens in the press, spilling our security secrets to our enemies.

We are in a struggle of epic proportions and we need people who can call the press and yes, our religious leaders, to account for their distortions about the state of our country and the world. She is clear and not mealy-mouthed. Jesus and the prophets were the same so I think she is in good company.

I notice that Ann has extensive footnotes to back up her assertions. Those who think she doesn't know whereof she speaks should spend some time checking out her sources.>

"True Christians know that they need to stand together and support one another."

Not if they don't believe that someone else is really practicing the word of God, which Ann Coulter obviously isn't. Look, you guys can champion and rally around her if you feel that she supports causes that you believe in, but don't be fooled by her religious rhetoric. She's a partison hack who's basically using God to support her side. All she cares about is causing dischord amongst Americans and promoting hatred and distrust. JUST LIKE MICHAEL MOORE. There is no difference between Moore and Coulter even though one is on the right and one on the left, they both come from the same ilk. These people are TEARING OUR COUNTRY APART. They don't care about honest debate or compromising to come to the best solutions, they just care about their side winning. Coulter worships a political party, not the word of God. Try looking at people's actions, and not just believe their assertions. People need to be less gullible when it comes to overly sensational partisan hacks like Coulter and Moore. They're harming our country, and there's nothing godly about either of them.>

James 3:11 Can a spring put out salt & fresh water both!
You will know them by there fruits!!!

Ann Coulter's cruel, tasteless, and reprehensible interpretation of Christianity will, in the long run, drive more people away from Christianity. Is there any......any....connection between her philosophy and the teachings of Jesus Christ? I don't see it. She is the instrument of ..... well, you be the judge.