Conservative author offends CNBC host Donny Deutsch with comment
CNBC video
Coulter on Jews
Conservative author Ann Coulter tells CNBC host Donny Deutsch that Christians just want Jews "to be perfected," left. In the clip below, she explains her remarks.
CNBC
CNBC video
Coulter explains herself
Oct. 8: Ann Coulter explains her remarks about Jews to CNBC host Donny Deutsch and says they were not intended to be offensive.
Conservative author Ann Coulter finds herself in the middle of a firestorm once again after remarks on a CNBC television show in which she said Jews need "to be perfected" and suggested the nation would be better off if it were all-Christian.
Appearing on "The Big Idea" with host Donny Deutsch on Monday, she said Christians were tolerant of racial diversity but that it "would be a lot easier" for Jews if they were to become Christians.
Deutsch, who described himself as a practicing Jew on the show, was clearly dismayed by the remarks, which he called "hateful" and "antisemitic," according to a transcript published on the Web by Editor and Publisher.
Story continues below ?advertisement
In her defense, Coulter apologized for the remarks and said they were misinterpreted.
"I don't think you should take it that way (as offensive), but that is what Christians consider themselves: perfected Jews. We believe the Old Testament," she said.
The people who take Ann Coulter seriously are the right's version of the people on the left who take Michael Moore seriously.
Both of these people are out there to make money for themselves, nothing more.
Ann's just a little better looking.
quite a lot lately. My Mom emailed me a few articles this woman wrote and I quit reading her a year ago when I read the last line in a story that went something like 'and if I haven't written something to offend you yet, stay tuned' - speaking to everyone. Not liberals - but everyone.
This woman should not be allowed out without a keeper. She makes conservatives look intolerant and ignorant.
..for Jews if they were to become Christians." Maybe this would be so if they converted among Christians (although the fate of "Christianized" Jews in Spain and Germany doesn't seem to warrant such an assumption). But maybe she refers to the "nation" of Israel not as a political entity, but a "spiritual" nation rather like the "ulama?" of Islam (the body of all Muslim believers). Wouldn't Iran be calling for the destruction of the "State of Israel" whether it was dominated by Chistians or Jews? She does seem to be a ignorant of the politics (as influenced by religion) of the region.
It's intolerance. I've seen it out of many far right wing pundits. They like to discuss how 'intolerant' democrats are about religion - specifically Christianity and then this kind of crap.
This is not how Jesus taught his followers to behave. With hypocrisies and intolerance. This is the kind of crap that made me stop reading her. Even my curiosity was outweighed by my disgust. She is not only ignorant of current events - but with her own professed religion.
Sorry, but the hate part went right over my head. I saw the interview and read the transcript. Where was the hate? And beyond that, what was wrong with what she said?
She said she thinks that everyone should be Christians and that the world would be a better place if everyone was. She then said, in a separate branch of the conversation, that "...we just want Jews to be perfected, as they say...Well, that
The problem for the Jews in Israel is that they aren't Christians. If they all converted to Christianity they would have a lot less problems. For one thing, maybe they wouldn't feel the need to stay in Israel. They could leave the site of their Temple Mount, and disperse to the rest of the world.
The Muslims would be happier (they could reclaim their holy sites), and Christians would be less of a nuisance in that part of the world. And Jews who converted to Christianity would be better tolerated throughout the world. Look how well Jews who converted to Christianity were tolerated in 1930's Germany? No one would ever suspect any other reason for Jews to convert to Christianity (en masse) than a true love for the faith(s) that has loved them and sheltered them through the centuries. Yes, those stupid Jews, they are a stiff-necked lot who just can't see what is good for them.
"You should start reading her again - and this time critically. "
As a conservative Christian woman I did read her critically - and expected to find common ground. What I found was a writer who takes political and current events and uses them to batter anyone who doesn't agree with her - she takes a point of commonality and stretches it into an irrational tirade which often has nothing to do with the original point.
And I do know that this goes directly against the teachings of Jesus. Matthew relates hearing Jesus saying to his friends about how they would be treated and how they should ACT IN THE WORLD: "Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves." Specifically Matthew 10:16.
No one who has read Ann Coulter or heard her speak can justify her actions against this.
.
I've been following this discussion, and I'm with Billy. Go far enough to the left, and you enter moonbat country. Make a U-turn and go far enough right, and you'll land in stupid country. I don't want any real estate in either one.
I don't think Moore and Coulter value anything except ratings. Both know their audience, which is composed of those who want to tie them to a pickup truck and drag them over forty miles of bad road, and the opposite, who want nothing more than to base their own personal lives on drivel they hear from their selected hero every day on the way to and from work. The Moore/Coulter line is easy: What will spin people up today?
Let me see if this is correct.
She would like Christians to convert Jews who are God's people and who brought the message from God to the world into Christians whom came after the words were handed down.
I am getting confused.
Who's on first again?
http://toledoohioneighborhoodconcerns.com/blog
Who's the bigger anti-semite?
Ann Coulter,
Mahmood Ahmadinejad,
or
Walt Disney?
MikeyA
...I just couldn't read it anywhere in what you quoted. I read something about a "new covenant", but also that "they shall not teach every man his neighbor".
Also, Pete, I want to thank you for the translation. You've provided some information. Hopefully the ayatollahs who now suppress freedom in Iran "must vanish from the page of time" (perhaps that just means be forgotten by history, or something equally innocuous or innocent). And they will see how innocent we are in our desires to see this (just as they are in theirs).
And it is very easy to see and read about the believers of the words being put forth on a day to day basis.
Some people who the words as the sacred truth and plan action based on the words.
http://toledoohioneighborhoodconcerns.com/blog
Question: Was Jesus a Christian?
I've met at least ten people who claim they are the Messiah. Looking at how supertitous people were 2000 years ago I would imagine it was dangerous to make a claim of being the Messiah. Today, we ignore them or send them to the funny farm.
I have to confess that I don't follow the Ann Coulter controversies too much. I regard her and the other far right-left TV pundits as essentially entertainers and tasteless ones at that. But a commentary in today's LA Times really hit the nail on the head about this latest flap.
"Ann Coulter is buzzing from one talk show to another these days, peddling her new book. Our era values mindless contention as a kind of entertainment, and we don't just reward relentless self-promotion -- we admire it. Thus, Coulter's phenomenal success at marketing distasteful, mean-spirited books -- poorly written and spottily researched -- that otherwise would go all but unremarked upon by everyone except the rhetorical ghouls who haunt the political fringes.
"Now, no Coulter promotional campaign would be complete without a calculated outrage -- a call for the forcible conversion of all Muslims, for example, or a demand for revocation of women's suffrage, an insult hurled at gays or the grieving widows of Sept. 11 victims. As more than one political consultant has remarked, the American far right is a carnivorous constituency, and it needs to be regularly thrown red meat. Coulter's singular genius has been to ignite tightly focused and timely controversies, thereby getting her ideological opponents to toss the scraps to her fans."
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-rutten13oct13,0,1859447....
So, according to The Anti Defamation League, Matt Lauer, Meredith Vieira, the LA Times and 99% of posters at Swampbubbles, Christians are not allowed to say that they would like everyone to be Christians and, in describing the basic perspective of their religion in relation to the Jews, they are not allowed to say that they think of themselves as perfected Jews.
So just in case I am being harangued and cornered with machine gun questions, barely able to get a word in edgewise, by a second rate talk show host trying to promote his pathetic career by creating ginned up offenses against political correctness, what should I say? I mean what is allowed? I just want to make sure I don't offend anyone.
Christianity is built on top of Judaism. So what terminology am I allowed to use to describe myself in relation to a Jew?
Jew 2.0?
Jew, Pro Edition?
Jew, now with 100% more Jesus?
Somebody help me out. There are alot of complainers out there. Is there anyone with a solution?
Anyone who chooses a religion does so because he thinks it is better than other religions. When asked directly if they think it is better than another religion, how should they respond without being censor...er, I mean, without "offending"?
...and Hindus (with their 100 million deities) accepts Buddhism as part of Hinduism (as a Hindu you can have any personal deity from Mohammed to Gnesh, the "elephant" god). Yet, they are anathema to the monotheistic Muslims. Who is the more tolerant? And yet among the "lower classes" of Hindus (those for whom "gods" are more important than exploration of belief) there are efforts to remove Mohammedans from their midst.
Among the monotheistic Jews, Christians in earlier times were viewed as heretics (after all they worshipped "Jesus"). Polytheistic religions are often more tolerant of "new" gods. Monotheistic faiths have the "answer" so there is no more need to search. You either believe, or accept your fate (either as a heretic, or a pagan).
Luckily, for those of us who question our country is based not on religion, but a constitution allowing "free will" to be exercised. Of course, there are always those who would like to see this changed. Maybe Islam will prevail, and we can all have that good "old time religion".
a concept dreamed up to disguise ones statement to suggest that the person speaking is going to say something that may upset another or a group and in most cases the statement does as the statement is pretty outlandish or is dead on and causes the person to squirm or group to react; just how I view it.
http://toledoohioneighborhoodconcerns.com/blog
And also why did she the need to state it in the first place.
The apology was genuine or part of the plan to get the message out there and then clean up after.
The game is to cause a splash with a provocative statement and get the statement out in the media and the apology is way back in the back and the message still resonants with the adherents to her words and the similar words of others.
http://toledoohioneighborhoodconcerns.com/blog
>>And also why did she the need to state it in the first place.>>
Because she was asked directly in one of many questions that were steering her right into the subject. She was responding to questions. It is not like she held a press conference to tell everyone something. Read the transcript. Watch the video.
>>The apology was genuine or part of the plan to get the message out there and then clean up after.>>
She didn't apologize for what she said. Once again, read the transcript or watch the video. She apologized for causing him to be offended, but then she reitered what she said, so that it would be clear and less likely to cause offense. But, of course, it still allegedly "caused offense" because getting her to say something that could be interpreted as offensive was the goal in the first place.
Coulter has an objective as sure as the sun comes up in the morning and the trail of her plans are obvious.
She makes comments about candidates of a party of her affiliation and uses religion as a tool to further thoughts and strategy's.
Her latest comments make them quite clear.
She went to the show and spoke her piece. The interviewer reacted, maybe a bit personally, but he was asking her questions to allow her to expand and comment further which she did. She could have stopped but on she went.
http://toledoohioneighborhoodconcerns.com/blog
I am always amused at the word, Hatred, being used when a person or persons respond to a person making a comment in these last few years.
If you spoke out about a policy or plan it was hate speech at the President.
In this case if you comment about a person with a transparent agenda, one to try and convince people that one party has a more moral grounding and uses religion, just one religion, as a tool to win elections.
There is no hatred in me or any thing I write and I am not what most would call a liberal but it is not political views that are under discussion it is moral or religious stance that is under the glare and some of one party claim they are more religious and more moral as they claim to be in touch with the Home Office more.
And Coulter's comments are just the latest in a string of trying to persuade people to head her words or else bad things may be fall us.
What's the line, beware false prophets especially one's with book deals.
http://toledoohioneighborhoodconcerns.com/blog
Yes, the reaction to Ann Coulter's comments is just the beginning of a slippery slope towards some big socialist plot by "The Left".
Today's Socialist Plot---brought to you by....."The Left & The Jews". Entertaining stuff babbleman....
Chris, I propose that hyper-sensitivity to things like this and the incentive to create victims is the result of creating, in law and in government, different groups. Ie, legal divisiveness.
I think that is a reasonable position - especially when the creation of those group definitions are in black and white as part of our civil, criminal and tax code. And the rise in the appearance of those institutional definitions coincide with the rise of this popular sensitivity.
Perhaps you have an equally reasonable counter position other than two line dismissive retorts. Or perhaps the lack of a reasonable response speaks to the strength of my case.
So which "special interest" group are you applying your thesis to in the Ann Coulter situation? Jews?
I am not applying it to a single group. I am applying it to the general cultural behavior of being extra sensitive to groups - ie, political correctness. And I believe that this situation is an example of that hyper sensitivity.
You pointed out earlier that political correctness doesn't come from the left or the right. And I would agree with you in terms of who plays along with it - there is no doubt that everyone does. It has become the currency for politicians on both sides of the fence. The politicians that win elections are those that build the portfolio of special interest following that results in the most votes. So, not only is playing the politcally correct game necessary to build one's portfolio, there is a high incentive to create new groups. Just as a business tries to capture market share while at the same time creating new markets.
So, my point is that the necessity for political correctness comes from government creating different groups so that it can collect heretofore unheard of amounts of money from everyone to redistribute between the groups based on political will. What I am saying is THIS is what creates division.
And following that, I think that the firestorm that plays out in the media with events like this is a reflection of those divisions in our culture after 60 or so years since the introduction of interest groups and collective policy.
Religion is a special interest group?
"And following that, I think that the firestorm that plays out in the media with events like this is a reflection of those divisions in our culture after 60 or so years since the introduction of interest groups and collective policy."
The firestorm of opinions is because there is a segment of the society that wants to run things their way as they perceive they have the answers.
Not all of the group believe this, some are quite humble and know that all the answers do not spring forth from one source.
Political correctness in regards to this, I just do not understand.
http://toledoohioneighborhoodconcerns.com/blog
Coulter laughs at all of you as she sells even more books-which is, of course, what all this was about. ;^D
She's currently dating a super-liberal, and one of her ex-boyfriends is Bill Maher, so she's as big a phony as Al Gore or Michael Moore. I can't believe some of you jackoffs are still worked up about this. Every time she has a new book out, she makes a comment that inspires controversy. Period. I did agree with her on one thing a while back-the 911 widows and the fact that the new , clinton-owned democratic party uses 'human shields' you're not supposed to be allowed to criticize. They've done it for years now. That Also should be no surprise.
----------------------
BRING THE TROOPS HOME-NOW!
_________________
"They keep talking about drafting a constitution for Iraq.Why don't we give them ours? It was written by a lot of really smart guys, and we're not using it any more".
If that's your comparison, it's very telling...
What is intolerant? She didn't say that someone else is not allowed to believe what they want. She said they would be better off believing what she wants. She is not suggesting that they be forced to do so. She is not suggesting laws to be different for one group or another. She is not suggesting ethnic cleansing.
She is suggesting that her religion is the best and everyone should follow it. Where is the intolerance?
>>hypocrisies and intolerance...They like to discuss how 'intolerant' democrats are about religion...This is the kind of crap that made me stop reading her. She is not only ignorant of current events - but with her own professed religion.>>
This is not the least bit hypocritical of her. To the contrary, her position, as she brilliantly argues in Godless, The Church of Liberalism, is that liberalism is itself a religion that is hell bent on being the state religion. She claims that the liberal cry of "separation of church and state" is a joke. She holds that the reality is a battle between religions, one trying to replace the other.
You should start reading her again - and this time critically. She is one of the clearest political thinkers of our time. And given that that clarity is on the right, this absurd PC reaction is completely predictable as are her book sales.
Ok, OldSouth, you are now arguing the merits of her proposal. You will have to take that up with her. My argument is about the mere act of her making the proposal - not its pros and cons.
>>Yes, those stupid Jews, they are a stiff-necked lot who just can't see what is good for them.>>
And where does this come from? Did you see the interview? She was asked if Jews should become Christians and she said, yes, in fact, that is what the New Testament says. She didn't imply the kind of things you are projecting on her here.
>>...a writer who takes political and current events and uses them to batter anyone who doesn't agree with her...>>
I guess I fail to see that as a criticism. That's sort of like saying, "I bought some chewing gum, but what I found was something sweet and chewy".
>>she takes a point of commonality and stretches it into an irrational tirade which often has nothing to do with the original point.>>
Wow, irrationality and straying from the point are two things I can say that I've never found in her writing. Can you point to an article where you see that? Seriously, I'm just curious on your take.
>>And I do know that this goes directly against the teachings of Jesus.>>
Ok, so we could get into a Bible quoting battle that could go on forever. But lets just talk general themes. Your quote points up a general theme of compassion - which implies that what she said was mean or hateful - but again, I hold that there wasn't anything mean or hateful about it, so it doesn't go against any themes of compassion.
The general themes that I am referring to are mission and conversion. That is, actively seeking to convert. That was what she was expressing.
Wouldn't a person in the community be mocked and had action take against him if he or she claimed the roll of Messiah at the time?
http://toledoohioneighborhoodconcerns.com/blog
OldSouth, I was using that passage to show that she wasn't just making this up.
So in the first verse, God finds fault with the people and says that, to fix it, he will make a new covenant. So, when something has a fault and you fix it, another way of expressing it is that you have perfected it. Really, the more concise passage would have been just verses 7 and 8:
7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
So again, my point is, for those people who might have thought she came up with the idea to be hateful, that it is actually part of the teaching.
You refer to the 11th verse and I think you might be reading the wrong thing into it:
11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
This refers to the fact that with the previous covenant, people taught other people the law of God. Now, with the new covenant, believers of the new covenant will get it straight from the source, perfectly, no chance of static or imperfections introduced in the translation. Therefore, the people of the new covenant's knowledge of God is perfected.
So, as Ann Coulter says, Christians see themselves as perfected Jews. She didn't say that Jews have to see Christians as perfected Jews - only that Christians do. Nor does she say that Jews should feel bad about or be offended or see themselves as less than perfect. Jews are free to see themselves however they want. Indeed, to the extent that a Jew does not accept the fundamental premise of Christianity in the first place, what Christians think of themselves should be irrelevant. But in any case, how she sees herself in the context of her religious beliefs is nobody's business but hers.
This is the perspective she was referring to. So it is what it is. If you don't like the workings of religion fine - but I'm not all that comfortable with a culture doesn't want people talking about it.
Ah, yes, the old, "far-right" and "politcal fringes" argument to discredit people.
Pete, political correctness is a system of ethics that comes from the humanist/liberal ethos and is used to form and justify collective policy as opposed to policy that protects individual liberty. It is also essential that if you are going to form an ethics system and put it into law, that you clear out all other systems of ethics that are competing with you.
Offending this ethics system is what Ann Coulter is always being accused of. Since it is an ethics system of the left, who is trying to make it into law everyday, it is important to understand that offending it is not on the "fringe". It is simply not left.
Ann Coulter is particularly adept at understanding, describing and exposing the impossible nature of political correctness as well as the insidious way it is used for censorship.
The best example is her "insult hurled at...the grieving widows of Sept. 11" as the LA Times puts it.
For anyone that hasn't read that chapter of Godless, let me break it down. In it she points out how political correctness uses victimization to create what she calls a "doctrine of infallability". That is, you cannot criticize victims, therefore, if you can attach a victim to your cause, your cause cannot be criticized.
So she goes on to illustrate all the ways in which liberals take victims and prop them up as human shields to censor critics. Among those examples is a specific group of 911 widows whose popularity and message critical of the right was funded by the left and architected by its strategists.
The victims, in turn, are made famous for their fifteen minutes - something often flattering and financially lucretive to them and the part that makes it a win-win situation. Thus her remarks about widows enjoying their husband's death. Yes, widows being exploited and lured into something like that is sick. And yes, one never sees a widow enjoying their husband's death except for when a liberal entertainment agent has gotten a hold of her - that's the point.
Offensive or not, the fact is, with this shield in place, there is no way to get to a liberal other than through a victim.
So, the irony that one of the most virulent reactions to her is the flap about the 911 widows is pretty sweet. But when you look closely, you'll see that every flap about her is always the violent reaction of the left pulling out the victim card every time and hiding behind it.
For politcal correctness to effectively become the state religion, people who think like Ann Coulter must be stopped.
Babbleman, I would answer, "It is the best religion for me." Even though I don't agree with everyone's religion, I respect their right to worship whatever god they choose. And, I don't criticize them. As far as I am concerned they can worship pine trees, and that would be fine as long as they don't try to force me to worship pine trees as well. I call myself a Christian, but I have some Christian positions that many other Christians find unusual. Because of this I am always being told that the firey pits of hell await me when I die. The interesting thing about this is that I rarely share my beliefs with anyone until they ask me a specific questions. When they hear my answer, they immediately want to show me the light so I want fall in this pit they have already dug for me.
I would like to point out that Christianity is not built solely on Judaism. The early Christians took over much of the thinking of the Graeco-Roman world and transformed what began as a Jewish offshoot into an amalgamation of Jewish beliefs and Greek philosophy, especially Plato and Aristotle. Christianity is not Jewish 2.0 but more like Greekwish 1.0
Um, I think the percentage might be a bit off.
"Christians are not allowed to say that they would like everyone to be Christians and, in describing the basic perspective of their religion in relation to the Jews, they are not allowed to say that they think of themselves as perfected Jews."
I always find this kind of statement amusing. Nothing personal in the least.
Some people of the faith use the reasoning that they are being told they cannot speak when there is a reaction to the comments.
Free speech is that free speech. And so are the reactions.
http://toledoohioneighborhoodconcerns.com/blog
I am always amazed by this.
How can there be monotheism when there is a trinity that melds three into one and considers the human form to also be God.
"Luckily, for those of us who question our country is based not on religion..."
Senator McCain may differ with you on the whole country is not a Christian country.
"Maybe Islam will prevail.." Heck even some Sunni and Shia consider each other infidels.
And yet all have the answers to the all the worlds problems.
http://toledoohioneighborhoodconcerns.com/blog
Why did she apologize?
into some ridiculous rant/tangent, it makes conservatives, at least those who support her, look like morons.
She doesn't really help your cause and why you carry the torch for her here is very amusing.
>>I am always amused at the word, Hatred, being used when a person or persons respond to a person making a comment in these last few years.>>
Actually, neighborhood, the term hate speech was used in about 18 gazillion hits on Google to describe Coulter's comment.
>>If you spoke out about a policy or plan it was hate speech at the President.>>
I don't believe that's the case. You may find people being criticized for speaking out against the President, but I doubt they would use the term "hate speech".
Hate speech is a specific legal term that the left is attempting to make into law. Right now, the main thing in their way is the first ammendment. But that wasn't a problem with campaign finance reform, and it won't be an issue with the "fairness doctrine" for their enemies on the radio or hate speech for their enemies in print or anywhere else as long as they have the ability to generate witch burnings like this.
Turning hate speech into law would put additional teeth into the institutionalization of special interest groups which can be traced back the 1936 election and the Forgotton Man that resulted in the hijacking of our tax code. It is the dividing up of our country into special interest groups that gave rise to political correctness which is the cultural ethics code that manages the tension between the groups.
I don't want to stray too far off topic, but developing special interest groups is absolutely essential for collectivist policies. And an ethics code has to develop to guide decisions on the relative value between the groups to determine how the collective bounty is going to be split up.
State healthcare, state childcare, state college funds, state safety nets - the more socialism you have, the more tension between groups that vie for its resources. The more tension, the more sensitivity.
Again, these are the kind of big picture things that people need to keep their eye on. Not Ann Coulter.
I understand your point Babbleman. I do think there are potential problems that exist with special interest groups and the influence that they can wield with our politicians. However, these types of groups have probably existed for alot longer than 60 years or so. They are however, better organized today. I would say the biggest potential problem would be that these groups could trample on the rights of others, or they could be involved in a type of "revolving door democracy". I don't necessarily agree that these groups spawned the phenomenon of "political correctness". While it may be the case with certain groups (how a certain group prefers to designate themselves, or certain words that offend these groups), there are just as many special interest groups that seem to have little use for "political correctness". For instance, how do labor groups use political correctness? How about the NRA?
So while in some cases, I could agree that group mentality or organization in general have the potential to trample individual rights and liberty. However I do not see these groups as some socialist threat.
Also, you say government creates these groups in order to redistribute wealth? Can you give an example of this? In my estimation, when wealth is redistributed there are only two groups involved--the haves, and the have-nots. Does government create these groups? And don't forget--wealth can be redistributed in countless ways. For instance, tax breaks can be considered re-distributing wealth--to the top. In this sense, if there is collaboration, it is more likely to be between the special interest group called "the wealthy", and the gov't---since gov't would have more to gain by redistributing wealth to the top---that gain being campaign contributions and continued power.
And I'm afraid we have veered completely off topic
"A series of articles on "the Jewish question" in American automaker Henry Ford
She apologized for causing him to be offended, but then she reitered what she said, so that it would be clear and less likely to cause offense.
More doublespeak, Babs.
Hey, did she use the same tactic with the 9/11 widows group? You know, the women just out for the attention and the dough?
I can't believe some of you jackoffs
Since Babbleman is a founding member of this special interest group, I'm sure he finds this extremely offensive.
clinton-owned democratic party uses 'human shields' you're not supposed to be allowed to criticize.
Unfortunately, both sides do this. Besides, maybe she doesn't do it to sell books. Maybe she does it for the same reason you call people jackoffs
can you elaborate your thoughts on that comment?
What if Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said he just wanted the Jews to be perfected? And that we would be better off if we were all-Muslim?
Ah, it's the "let's do away with political correctness" argument. Political correctness is not a "system of the left". It's just people realizing that to function in a society, it's advantageous to avoid pissing people off. Think of it as a societal evolutionary step that helps bind us together. Those who deny it are just looking for excuses to call people names. Ann Coulter garners attention because she realizes she can get pub by going against this grain. The good news is, that because of her freak show persona she does not fit into society as it is currently drawn up, and therefore she will probably fail to pass on her defective genes.
Pursuing individual liberty, for the most part, is a great message. But at some point, humans had/have to band together in order to survive. Ann Coulter's words/ideas do not help people band together, they pull people apart.
McCaskey. Didn't think to ask that - but why would she?
James, thanks for the response. So, then, I would suggest that if I could keep asking you questions, I could eventually get you to give an answer that a) would not be consistent with the teachings of your religion or b) would be offensive (based on the standards that determined "offensive" in this case).
If that's the case, the logical conclusion is that you would either a) have to abandon your religious belief to keep from being offensive or b) stick to your belief but lie about it publicly so that you keep from being offensive or c) stick to your religious belief and don't lie about it. With case C, your answer would be deemed offensive and you would suffer whatever consequences there are to being offensive.
I don't know if you or anyone else are willing to indulge me, but it might be a fun game. The rules would be based largely on the transcript of the interview between Coulter and Deutsch. That is, both the questions and answers are very short. Generally 1 to 20 words, but never more than 50.
Remember, with this format, you can't really explain yourself much. Unfortunately, we can't exactly simulate it in a turn-based fashion like this on a blog - it really has to be real time action because we would be cutting each other off quickly. But if both the questions and answers are short - we can demonstrate the same thing.
The first two lines below are what we have so far. The third line is the INTERVIEWER's second turn and I have entered his next question.
INTERVIEWER: Is Christianity better than any other religion?
GUEST: It is the best religion for me.
INTERVIEWER: But you believe that Christians have a more direct relationship with God than Jews?
Anyone game to fill in the next GUEST answer?
McCaskey, as per usual, the issue has whizzed straight over your head.
I am not defending her.
I'm trying to point out that special interest sensitivity and political correctness have so addled the balance of our popular dialogue that reason is smothered. And that can have really bad results. The only hatred I saw in this issue was in the reaction - not the original statement.
And given that the statement came from a one 100 pound woman and the hatred is spewing from millions of rabid liberals, I'm thinking maybe we have our priorities a little backwards.
Danny Deutsch, in collusion with the Today Show, manufactured this issue to breed hatred. And you swallowed it.
To me, this issue is exactly like the Muhammad cartoons controversy a couple of years ago, only without the violence. Yet.
Yeah, I think it's a poor comparison. Whether you like Michael Moore or not, at least when he is mentioned, it is in cunjuction with such subjects as the broken healthcare system, gun violence, globalization, etc. At least he makes us think of important issues. Whenever Coulter is in the limelight, it is mainly to defend something hateful she recently spewed.
That would be fine.
When he says that Israel should be "wiped off the map", well, now see, that's intolerance.
>>Political correctness is not a "system of the left".>>
Ok, then point to something that you would consider politcally correct, either culturally or in government policy, that came from the right.
that she didn't really apologize for her words per se, but for causing offense to those who took them the 'wrong way.'
It actually sounds like the sort of double-speak he often accuses liberals of spouting.
comes with so much negative baggage attached to her, Babs, that it's way beyond just the little 'special interest groups' that find her offensive or worse virtually every time her jaws flap open.
I have no idea who this Albert Mohler is, but I think he understands the crux of the problem with your sweetie.
http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=893
Admit it Babs, you just want to play with her hair.
I disagree, but appreciate your candor. I think moore is a twit who's out for himself and himself only -
Case in point, he says he's pro union, but disallows his writers to be in a guild.
He's anti school voucher yet his kids go to private schools.
He at one time owned stock in halliburton...
He might talk about issues, but neither he nor Ann C have any credibility in my book -theyre both only out for a buck.
But if the Jews were "perfected", wouldn't Israel be "wiped off the map"?
This business about wiping Israel off the map has been repeated so many times that I checked around to find the original Farsi and an English translation
The quote in Farsi:
"Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad."
"That passage will mean nothing to most people, but one word might ring a bell: rezhim-e. It is the word "regime." pronounced just like the English word with an extra "eh" sound at the end. Ahmadinejad did not refer to Israel the country or Israel the land mass, but the Israeli regime. This is a vastly significant distinction, as one cannot wipe a regime off the map. Ahmadinejad does not even refer to Israel by name, he instead uses the specific phrase "rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods" (regime occupying Jerusalem).
"So this raises the question.. what exactly did he want "wiped from the map"? The answer is: nothing. That's because the word "map" was never used. The Persian word for map, "nagsheh" is not contained anywhere in his original Farsi quote, or, for that matter, anywhere in his entire speech. Nor was the western phrase "wipe out" ever said. Yet we are led to believe that Iran's president threatened to "wipe Israel off the map." despite never having uttered the words "map." "wipe out" or even "Israel."
The full quote translated directly to English:
"The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time."
Word by word translation:
Imam (Khomeini) ghoft (said) een (this) rezhim-e (regime) ishghalgar-e (occupying) qods (Jerusalem) bayad (must) az safheh-ye ruzgar (from page of time) mahv shavad (vanish from)." "
What is the significance of this? Namely, our news organizations and government have misrepresented what was actually said and have continued to repeat blatant lies (if one takes a cynical approach).
This is the kind of stuff that, if repeated often enough, is accepted as truth. I wonder about the entire "problem" this country seems to be having with Iran if this country is so eager to lie (once again) about another country it contemplates attacking.
I don't think political correctness comes from the left or the right.
Here is the transcript after the commercial break. I don't sense even a hint of backpeddling. What I see is a feudal attempt on Coulter's part to remind Deutsch of what she said and what it means as opposed to what he asserts she said and what he projects as her meaning. You decide:
DEUTSCH: Welcome back to The Big Idea. During the break, Ann said she wanted to explain her last comment. So I
I'm not following your point Chris. Ahmadinejad proposes killing people.
Coulter is doing no such thing by any stretch.
And as far as the perfection bit, see the King James version of Hebrew 8:8-13. The main message of Hebrew is to bring in converted believers.
Now, before anyone starts arguing about the merits of different religions, let me be clear that I am not quoting the Bilble to proselytize. I am pointing out the intellectual integrity of her position. Perfecting Jews, among others is a correct position regarding the New Testament. And it in now way implies hate towards anyone.
8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.
13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.
And at least to me her objective was clear. To paint one group better than another and to play into the hands of those that still use religion as a political tool to win office.
She got her message out and accomplished her mission.
And just a personal opinion regarding, "Ours is
Ahmadinejad proposes killing people.
Does he? Is this assumed by his statement that "Israel should be wiped off the map"? Or is he saying that they should have never been granted statehood in what they consider their holy land? (I've heard both explanations) If the latter is true, and you take Coulter's statement to mean that the Jews should be converted to Christianity----then would there be no need for a state of Israel. And if effect, she and he are saying the same thing.
>>I watched the interview...And at least to me her objective was clear.>>
That's fine neighborhood, but surely you will agree that she was in no way driving the topic? I mean, if she had an objective, Deutsch would have had to have been part of the game. He totally created the topics and forced the answers - how could she have an objective?
Well, what your saying is would there be the same outcome. I guess, but the whole hypothetical is sort of meaningless anyway. She was not calling for some kind of world conversion to Christianity. She was simply explaining basic tenets of Christianity and its New Testament and how it relates to the Old Testament and Judaism.
Now, aside from whatever Ahmadinejad may have *really* meant, everyone's impression of him is militant in nature. As in death and oppression. That is so completely not the case with Ann Coulter - so no there is not even a close comparison.
In her own words:
"No. I'm sorry. It is not intended to be [offensive]. I don't think you should take it that way, but that is what Christians consider themselves: perfected Jews. We believe the Old Testament. As you know from the Old Testament, God was constantly getting fed up with humans for not being able to, you know, live up to all the laws. What Christians believe -- this is just a statement of what the New Testament is -- is that that's why Christ came and died for our sins. Christians believe the Old Testament. You don't believe our testament."
But I got around to her new book today and found this quote and I couldn't help but to bring it full circle. Ironically, she was pitching this book when this post happened:
About twice a year for nearly a decade, I have upset the little darlings [liberals] with some public statement, and yet they manage to summon fresh outrage for each new offense. Each time they think I can’t “sink any lower” — I proceed to do so!
And by the way, if they’re going to keep using the tired formulation “This time, she’s gone too far!” — can I get an admission that the last sixteen times were, therefore, not “too far”?
But its not just the acknowledgement that she pisses off liberals regularly - it is the exact phrases -"sink any lower" and "gone too far".
I heard numerous media personalities from completely unrelated news organizations use these exact phrases during this incident.
It is like the montage that Rush Limbaugh put together on Bush needing Chaney for "gravitas".
It must suck to have to think like a bunch of other people on cue.
And on the opposite end of the free thinking spectrum, it must be really cool to be able to write a book that can quote the reaction to the book's future publicity tour verbatim.