Jim Stillman
Nevar
Ann Coulter – Redux.
October 28th 2007 17:16
Last July, I submitted a post on Orble discussing Ann Coulter and her foul mouth. Really Long Link I could not have anticipated her ability and willingness to sink to even greater depths of indecency and insensitivity. As I noted in the previous post, Ms Coulter has suggested that John Edwards was a homosexual, that Senator Edwards should be assassinated, and the surviving spouses of those killed on September 11, 2001, were enjoying not being required to pick up the socks of a dead husband. (The constant explanations of the Right zealots are twofold: First she was only kidding and, second, liberals can’t take a joke.
The most recent incarnation of her so-called humor was manifested on a show in which she proclaimed that Heaven was like New York during the Republican convention, except for the presence of Jews who required conversion to Christianity to be “perfected”. Even some of the most rabid conservative “talking heads” balked at this!
Ms Coulter professes to be Catholic. As such, one would think she would be aware of the proclamation of the Second Vatican Council in 1965; Nostra Aetate, the Declaration on the Relation of the Church with Non-Christian Religions. This proclamation has a complex history.
The first draft of the proclamation, which was neither submitted nor reviewed did, in fact, suggest a viewpoint similar to that of Ms Coulter.
"Furthermore, the Church believes in the union of the Jewish people with herself as an integral part of Christian hope. With unshaken faith and deep longing the Church awaits union with this people. The Church believes. . . that at the appointed time, the fullness of the children of Abraham accord.”
This position did not sit well with scholars of both Christian and Jewish faiths, inferring as it did that conversion of the Jews was a primary aim of the Church. In 1962, Rabbi Abraham Hechel of New York was clear,
"It must be stated that spiritual fratricide is hardly a means for the attainment of fraternal discussion or reciprocal understanding. A message that regards the Jews as candidates for conversion and proclaims that the destiny of Judaism is to disappear will be abhorred by Jews all over the world and is bound to foster reciprocal distrust as well as bitterness and resentment. As I have repeatedly stated to leading personalities at the Vatican, I am ready to go to Auschwitz if faced with the alternative of conversion or death. Jews throughout the world will be dismayed by a call from the Vatican to abandon their faith in a generation which has witnessed the massacre of six million Jews and the destruction of thousands of synagogues on a continent where the dominant religion was not Islam, Buddhism, or Shintoism."
The final draft omitted all calls for conversion. As ArchBishop O’Boyle of the District of Columbia warned,
The rants of Ms Coulter go far afield from her usual anti-liberal blathering. She has identified herself as both anti-Christian and anti-Jew. Not that easy a task.
The most recent incarnation of her so-called humor was manifested on a show in which she proclaimed that Heaven was like New York during the Republican convention, except for the presence of Jews who required conversion to Christianity to be “perfected”. Even some of the most rabid conservative “talking heads” balked at this!
Ms Coulter professes to be Catholic. As such, one would think she would be aware of the proclamation of the Second Vatican Council in 1965; Nostra Aetate, the Declaration on the Relation of the Church with Non-Christian Religions. This proclamation has a complex history.
The first draft of the proclamation, which was neither submitted nor reviewed did, in fact, suggest a viewpoint similar to that of Ms Coulter.
"Furthermore, the Church believes in the union of the Jewish people with herself as an integral part of Christian hope. With unshaken faith and deep longing the Church awaits union with this people. The Church believes. . . that at the appointed time, the fullness of the children of Abraham accord.”
This position did not sit well with scholars of both Christian and Jewish faiths, inferring as it did that conversion of the Jews was a primary aim of the Church. In 1962, Rabbi Abraham Hechel of New York was clear,
"It must be stated that spiritual fratricide is hardly a means for the attainment of fraternal discussion or reciprocal understanding. A message that regards the Jews as candidates for conversion and proclaims that the destiny of Judaism is to disappear will be abhorred by Jews all over the world and is bound to foster reciprocal distrust as well as bitterness and resentment. As I have repeatedly stated to leading personalities at the Vatican, I am ready to go to Auschwitz if faced with the alternative of conversion or death. Jews throughout the world will be dismayed by a call from the Vatican to abandon their faith in a generation which has witnessed the massacre of six million Jews and the destruction of thousands of synagogues on a continent where the dominant religion was not Islam, Buddhism, or Shintoism."
The final draft omitted all calls for conversion. As ArchBishop O’Boyle of the District of Columbia warned,
“The word 'conversion' awakens in the hearts of Jews memories of persecutions, sufferings, and the forced denials of all truths that a Jew loves with sincerity and good faith. So a Jew, when he hears that Catholics are seeking to further his ‘conversion,’ thinks of the reintroduction of that type of proselytism that for centuries assaulted his rights and personal dignity.”
The rants of Ms Coulter go far afield from her usual anti-liberal blathering. She has identified herself as both anti-Christian and anti-Jew. Not that easy a task.
| 78 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
I don't want to sound like a bigot but Ann Coulter seems to be the rights attempt at producing a funny yet insightful character ala the lefts Jon Stewart or Michael Moore yet she fails miserably because the views she expresses are that of fundamentalists on crack.
Maybe she's finding that allies are useless and instead is just making everyone mad at her, reasoning that the more people are mad at her the more it would benefit her career.
Comment by Jeff Musall
That's why I feel it is critical to speak out....
Comment by Damo
The question for every self profession religion (and even anti-religious ideologies) is how to convert followers.
What Ann has said is in fact not different from what I have heard Buddhists say in a less confronting manner. "the world would be much simpler if everyone could see Buddhism as the correct way." (Buddhism is just an example so don't quote me literally)
The difference here is who said it and her track record of statements. In short she started a flame war over a trite point.
The term 'More Complete' is fraught with ambiguities and is possibly just a bit of 'Dog Whistling' to a select crowd. How can it be objectively proven? That is the point, it can't.
That being said her continual attack upon people of other religions does fly in the face of any kind of ecumanism or peaceful co-existance. The fact that she wishes to wrap herself in the flag of Catholicism is not much different than people wrapping them selves in a national flag to appear morally pure. In her case I would strongly argue that it is a flag on convenience, not of conviction.
It is just show business.
Comment by Jim Stillman
Political Certainty
OK, let's see if your words/promises are true.
I hope they are.
Comment by S.L. Bradish
First of all, I don't speak for Ann Coulter or anyone else. I do, however, know plenty of Christians who want to convert the whole world (especially the Jews, for it was upon their religion that Christianity was founded.) You'll note that I have never mentioned my own religion. And I won't. It's nobodies business.
I stand with the Jews and with Israel. In this day and age, anyone would be a fool not to. Israel is the best thing that ever happened to the Middle East and needs to continue and thrive for the peace and stability of the region and the rest of the world. I do not recall Ann Coulter (or any other conservative, for that matter) saying that Israel should be destroyed. Only Muslims and a few sterling examples of liberalism are against the existance of the Jewish state. Jimmy Carter leaps to mind... There's a good lib/dem you might want to challenge, Jim. He and Ahmadinejad have a lot in common.
It makes me wonder if you really have Hebrew blood, JIm... You accept the garbage of Carter and some other extremist libs, cozy up with the very ones who support all things Islamic (the destruction of Israel being their favorite selection on the death menu), and complain when Ann Coulter suggests that the Jews should be converted.
Her remark about John Edwards being gay wasn't totally unreasonable, by the way. Most men don't devote themselves to looking "picture perfect" at all times and real men don't have to send their dying wives out to defend them. Real men are able to speak for themselves... The exact notion that maybe Edwards should be assasinated came from either his or his wife's statement that it was a "shame" when a bomb didn't kill Dick Cheney, the Vice-president of the United States! She did NOT write a script about Edwards being killed (like the good libs/dems did about President Bush) and she did NOT suggest in any way that anyone should target him for permanent removal.
If you'd like a few other ideas I have on the subject of the real anti-Semitics, JIm, try this on for size. I have made no statement against Israel. I have said quite clearly that I stand with Israel, no matter what. Doesn't exactly put me in the sights of the ADL, does it? But how many of the pro-Muslim, anti-Semitic slimes make pleasant comments about your ravings? How many of those who deny the Holocaust do you support? Perhaps my memory is failing, but I don't seem to recall even once that you lambasted Billary for approving a "Palestinian State" at the expense of Israel.
Did I leave anything out? Happy now?
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
"But how many of the pro-Muslim, anti-Semitic slimes make pleasant comments about your ravings?"
Well I can't speak for everyone, and neither can you, but personally I haven't even said that 'jews need perfecting' much less have I insulted them for being Jewish. BUt you know, I'm not too fond of Israel having a massive military force for the sake of being a pseudo-base for the US which makes me anti-semetic now doesn't it?
Comment by Jeff Musall
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
...as the orthodox jews do.
Comment by S.L. Bradish
Their ignorance is really amazing... If you support Israel, you must also support the Jews, for it is their country. The country they rule is part and parcel of their history and their identity. Look at Israel, Jim. It was once a chunk of dead, dry desert and is now a garden spot. Because of the Jews, it is flourishing and prospering. The Arab countries that surround it are jealous because the lands they rule are all empty of anything but their ugliness and hatred.
This is why I don't come here often, Jim. You make such a point of "suffering fools gladly" and agreeing with them.
Comment by Jim Stillman
Political Certainty
I have, however, my disdain for anyone who calls you names or is obscene, just as I object to the Billary crap.
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
Just to entertain myself,
I don't support Israel but I support Jews as I support homosexuals and hindus and christians or anyone else, they have a right to practice their beliefs. That doesn't mean I have to say 'yes Jews should also hae Israel and they should be supported for that too'. In mu opinion israel was founded on a lie and to this day it continues to run that lie. There is no justification for takign away someones home in the name of making room for someone else. I'm sure that wasn't the reason (before Israel was even founded there were more jews than muslims in jeruselam), it feels more like the whole creation of Israel was to actually create direct military hostilities between Muslims and Jews.
Which is a very, very modern thing, Jews and Muslims have historically always gotten along fine but in the last hundred years or so things have changed for the worse due to the political meddlings of foreign powers seeking to achieve their own ends.
Israel is not for the Jews and neither is Palestine for the Muslims, the country, the land they live on is for both parties, it always has been and it always should be yet for some inexplicable reason they were divided when Israel had to suddenly be created taking away hundreds of thousands of peoples homes and forcing them to live in tents. That created the hostilities, now we have suicide bombers and war machines killing human lives on both sides in the itnerests of political powers.
No doubt if the US gave every country in the middle least $30 billion a year they would do much better. Though your claims are flawed, look at Dubai, look at Saudi arabia, two corrupt states doing very well for themselves.
See the thing is, you hate seeing other people express their views, and thats why you don't come here. Or go anywhere, I havent really seen you comment on any other Orble blog besides youranters and your own. You're literally afraid of seeing another viewpoint and worse yet commenting on it. Perhaps it's because you are so sure you are right when you are subconsciously afraid you may be wrong?
Comment by Jim Stillman
Political Certainty
I in no way endorse Jims views and I'm sure he doesn't mine, we don't agree with each other 100% on everything all the time. Theres room to disagree between us but for you, well for you the only allies are those who only ever agree with you 100% so you find it hard to comprehend the concept of 'agreeing to disagree'.
Comment by S.L. Bradish
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
You do realize when we agree to disagree we concede not our ideas (or ideals) but rather that we simply cannot agree here so we agree on that simple fact. If we were politicians we would let the votes decide. There have only ever been a very few times in history when voters have been equally divided on an issue which has been understandbly the cause of bitter arguments yet since the vietnam war it seems like we have to bitterly argue about everything even when voters have openly made up their collective minds.
The problem with your line of thinking is you cannot accept that the majority of americans may vote for democrats though unfortunately for you it is very likely that they will simply because George Bush has left a bad taste in their mouths. You might try and refute this point yet ultimately it will be in vein, you have to agree that the collective minds of the voters disagree with your opinions ergo you have to agree to disagree. You could always start your own country or go to a dictatorship like Iran or the Soviet Union if you don't like it.
I'm happy to be wrong about stuff, you know if I am wrong about something I get corrected on it and learn something. On the other hand if I'm right all the time then I'm just an arrogant jerk who thinks he (or she as the case may be
As far as not standing up to anything, I stand up to a lot of things, you won't ever catch me backing down on what I believe is the very fabric that makes up our societies and I vote accordingly to those beliefs. For instance I'm not backing down on the issue of gay-rights so much so that I'm not willing to vote for a politician who does not support it. I don't care if he supports everything else I agree with because he disagrees with one of the fundamental aspects of our society.
Now tell me, if you so believe that America is a country of freedom why you would be so hostile against someone who supports gay rights? Who is compromising on their beliefs? To really be free you have to think big, you have to see every claim you make to the end. It's easy to claim you love freedom but it certainly isn't easy to show it. You fail at the first step towards proving you truly love the freedom America is built upon simply because you criticize candidates based on the fact they support something like gay marriage which ultimately means you do not support someonen who advocates human rights.
Comment by Jeff Musall
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
To quote a certain someone 'we hold these truths to be self evident' (yeah it was out of context but appropriate none the less).
I guess it's not surprising she ran back to her own little hide away and indulged in her views - where no one opposes her. I think I'll play the same game (albeit I expect disagreement), she claims that she has liberal friends but I can't for the life of me believe she has any 'liberal' friends. The way she speaks of liberals you would think they are nazis, out to destroy america and cause generel chaos. I'm convinced she just makes up stories about her supposed liberal friends to make herself feel better...