When they say “Judeo-Christian”, they actually mean “Judeo–Christian,” and they actually hope it means “Jews-for-Jesus-Christian” someday.
It’s all good as long as it translates into more book sales to bigots.
Pharyngula
Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
Link broken.
Link broken.
Sorry, but you are looking for something that isn’t here
Just like the Judeo-Christians?
Ugh… Ann Coulter is a witless slag, isn’t she?
And, here’s the link.
Pretty good-
You didn’t mention A** C******’s name.
I suggested before that we should wait until after C****** ends plugging his/her latest book before beating the hell out of his/her tired arguments.
Completely unenforceable I know- but I’ve seen him/her stating how much s/he enjoys the controversy because it increases sales.
When I hear “Judeo-Christian” I usually figure the person saying it is really meaning “Protestant”.
Ironcially, Muslims consider themselves “completed christians.” They believe that their prophet Voldemuhammad (He Who Must Not Be Named) gave us the latest revelation from god, superceding their god’s revelations through earlier prophets like Moses and Jesus.
Depends on what they’re railing against. Most don’t understand the shared history of Islam as another Abrahamic faith and are happy to include Mormons some of the time. Other times the reference can be quite specific as they hone the definition of true Christian.
American fundamentalists seem to regard Judaism as a beta Christianity, obsolete since V3.1 is out. As I think about it, there’s a blog post somewhere in the Christianity XP/Vista meme.
I have a problem with calling Ann Coulter’s remarks “anti-semetic.” They’re not. She’s simply pointing out that, if you believe in Christianity, then you think that everyone ought to be a Christian, or will be a Christian. If your religion is true, then other religions — including Judaism — are wrong. Saying the Jews’ religion is factually wrong and they would improve from changing their minds is not anti-semetic. Anti-semetic is saying the Jews are wicked, or evil, or sub-human.
The shocked charges of “bigotry” here come out of a viewpoint which holds that a person’s religion is sacred, an untouchable personal identity. What you believe in religion is not like what you believe in politics or science or other areas. Therefore, attacking it is just like attacking someone’s race, national origin, or personal tastes: nobody, ever, should say that anyone else’s religion is wrong. Religion should be respected.
Gee, where do we ever hear that line?
I think the Jews would improve if they became atheists, because there is no God. I don’t mean they’d become better people, or nicer, or anything like that. But if it’s the truth, then that’s what it is. I assume they — and all other people of faith — think it would be better for me to believe in God if that’s what happens to be the case. I agree. This is about facts, not protecting some sort of identity. If I’m wrong, I would want to change my mind.
When we atheists jump on the easy “ooh, anti-semetic” bandwagon in cases like this, we’re undercutting our own case for being outspoken.
The only advice Ann Coulter is qualified to give is how to be a perfect fucking asshole.
Sastra: In a perfect world you would be right. However- C******’s comments are made in a world where millions of Jews died in part because a group of Christians thought that the Jewish religion was deficient.
C***** is pandering to the Nazis who believe that the Jews killed Jesus etc.
(And I don’t care if I Godwinned myself! C****** IS a Nazi.)
Man, seeing that picture of A** C****** before lunch made me lose my appetite…
Her neck reminds me of that snake that ate the hippo.
BTW- C****** is 19th on the Amazon top 100 list.
I suspect this is disastrous given her/his expected sales. Maybe there is hope for humanity.
There is a thread running at UD now that charges Richard Dawkins for buying into the Jewish world-domination conspiracy. Many shocked, shocked I tell you, religionists expressing dismay at the bigotry.
The irony, it hurts.
Far be it from me to defend that evil Eva Braun wannabe
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA She didn’t really say that all out loud did she?
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Oh dear I’ve just shat a kidney laughing. I’ll get it looked at, don’t worry.
AC is one of the funniest comedians I’ve seen. Seriously, you Americans produce some of the best comedians, well done you…
…WHAAAAA?
She’s SERIOUS?
Noooo!
I love it when the facade of interfaith cooperation fades and the real face of relgion is exposed. Please, bleeding heart moderates and appeasers don’t jump all over me, but implicit (at least) in the detail of a specific religion is that other religions are wrong (unless you do such woolly damage to the tenets of a specific religion and warp them so they are so vague that they don’t even constitute a religion any more. Then they resemble nothing more than mild dyspepsia combined with wishful thinking).
When the UK government were about to pass incitement to religious hatred laws recently, I actually wanted them to hit the books. Why? Because that weekend me and my trusty tape recorder would have been to the nearest mosque and the nearest church and the nearest gurwara and the nearest synagogue and I would have started a lawsuit to aid each one of those religions sue the others for incitement to religious hatred.
Let’s get the workplaces, schools and governments nicely secular please.
Louis
Christian Burnham wrote:
No, the Jews did not die because Christians thought their religion was deficient (ie wrong): they died because a group of people believed that virtuous traits were mystically carried in blood and nationality, and the Jewish race was deficient. The A_C is not pandering to the Nazis: she’s standing on the same ground we are here, and taking religion seriously as particular truth claims, and not something akin to race.
It isn’t religious bigotry to believe or say that someone’s religious views are wrong. Those who think that are the first to charge people like Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens, and PZ with bigotry.
Religious bigotry comes from the belief that your views are not only right, but so clearly and obviously right that there is no real disagreement. There is no case for the other side, and they do not deserve any kind of hearing or discussion. People with other beliefs are stupid or wicked — they lie. The real truth is self-evident to all but the willfully blind. That’s bigotry — stripping the other side of any possibility that they reasoned their way to their position, or that they hold it honestly, in good faith.
I can’t stand A_C either, but I’m not going to just knee-jerk disagree with her every time, or I become like A_C.
Some of you are using way to many asterisks.
A** C****** is really just A C***.
OK- I’m getting sucked into the vortex of stupidity- which as I said runs into the trap of giving more publicity to Eva Braun (thank-you MartinC).
Here’s what a TownHall columnist has to say about this
http://kevinmccullough.townhall.com/g/c0dbe939-60a0-4658-a687-85f92b7f904b
Sieg Heil!
So, what do we have so far?
1) Rush’s little prattling about “phony soldiers.”
2) Michelle Malkin stalking a twelve-year-old boy who has since received death threats as a direct result of her actions.
3) AC here saying Jews need to be “perfected.”
Someone explain to me how it is people actually listen to these lunatics?
Sastra makes an excellent point, and I also agree with Louis’ observation that this is not extremism, this is “the true face of religion”. If you think her comments are shocking, you haven’t read the New Testament – this is exactly what it says. You don’t like it, take it up with Sts. John and Paul. And this speaks directly to Dawkins’ oft-repeated argument that not only do we not get our morality from the Bible, but that the modern, western sense of right and wrong that we all take pretty much for granted is in fact far superior to biblical morality.
I’m pretty sure that if you asked Orthodox Jews what they really thought about Christianity — the religion itself, rather than Christians-as-people — the words “horrendous blasphemy” would be expressed, and words to that effect.
I vaguely recall that there’s a line somewhere in Deuteronomy condemning those who worship gods of wood and stone. While it was obviously meant to refer to contemporaneous idolaters, some (relatively recent) commentators suggested that the text was prophetic, with “wood” referred to the the wooden cross, i.e., Christianity, and “stone” referring to the stone of the Kaaba, i.e., Islam. And so on and so forth.
PS: Spelling nit: anti-semitic, not anti-semetic. I think the latter would be in opposition to seeds, or new ideas, or sperm, or something like that.
Although I do believe she’s a bigot, she spouts this bullshit just to get media attention. The best thing to do is ignore her.
The cherry on the cake is the “churches are diverse” part. Just last June the American Sociological Review pointed out that (in case anyone had forgotten) protestant churches are still the most segregated place in America.
ASR Volume 72 Number 3 (July 2007)
Blanchard, Conservative Protestantism and Racial Segregation.
Christian Burnham #4: I despise AC as much as anyone, but is the transphobia necessary?
Otherwise, carry on.
Some of you are using way to many asterisks.
A** C****** is really just A C***.
Hmm. Conservative? Clown? Crackpot? C–
Oh.
Kidding aside, that’s the first word that comes to my mind too.
I saw someone in another thread refer to her as “the Coultergeist”… that has to be my favorite.
The problem is that the media isn’t ignoring her. Therefore, she gets the attention, along with the opportunity and the medium to spout her garbage. To simply ignore her would be to allow that to continue unabated.
You mean “A Clot“, right?
Right?
So if there is a such thing as ‘Judeo-Christian’ values, based on being ‘people of the book’-the Old Testament, shouldn’t we be calling them “Islamo-Judeo-Christian’ values?
Her statement is an accurate summary of conservative Christian
believe
http://scienceblogs.com/mikethemadbiologist/2007/10/ann_coulter_calls_for_the_spir.php#comment-598163
You’ve all fallen for it. The more you talk about the idiotic things she intentionally says to drive up books sales, the more money you put into her pockets. It doesn’t matter if she believes what she says or not because we’re throwing fuel on her fire. The longer the fire burns, the more books she sells. The more books she sells, the more she’s able to do this next time. She’s a troll. Ignore her and she goes away.
You can get her new book for free* here!
https://www.conservativebookclub.com/Join/SingleBookJoin.asp?sour_cd=sb517az&prod_cd=c7136
*With membership, plus $3.95 for S&H. Some restrictions may apply.
It should indeed. Islam stemmed out from the same basis as Christianity. The point is, I think, one should never expect the True Believers to be more accurate than it serves them
Regarding comment #29, I mean.
“So, what do we have so far?
1) Rush’s little prattling about “phony soldiers.”
2) Michelle Malkin stalking a twelve-year-old boy who has since received death threats as a direct result of her actions.
3) AC here saying Jews need to be “perfected.”
Someone explain to me how it is people actually listen to these lunatics? ”
It is because these so called Christians feed off of anger and hate all the while calling it Jesus’ love. They need this to fuel up every morning.
PZ is right on what these people actually think of Judaism, but I can’t believe no one picked up on the other thing that Ann Coulter said!
Or, with more clarity:
Or, to paraphrase: “You Jews have to actually behave and do the right thing. We Christians believe we can get away with anything because somebody else will be/was punished for it!”
…And they still claim you need to be Christian to be moral.
#28: If you mean the kind of clot that winds up in your brain and gives you a stroke, then absolutely.
If people just ignored her, before too long, she’d be in a straight-jacket interviewing herself.
Demented fuckwit.
There. That’s better.
Considering how stupid judaism is* and how laughable christianity is, “judeo-christian” always parses to me as something like:
Dumb, with a side order of ignorance
(* Pre-emptively: I am not being anti-semitic. I am being anti-religious. The fact that I ridicule the stupid things jews believe in doesn’t mean I approve of the other stupid things people want to do to jews because of the stupid things they believe in. As a non-believer, I think jews, muslims, christians, buddhists, and even pastafarians are all just f*cking nutters)
AC is one of the funniest comedians I’ve seen. Seriously, you Americans produce some of the best comedians, well done you…
I keep waiting for her to disgorge right-wing polemics until they stop selling, and then write a book about how she was really a liberal all along and how amazed she is that she was able to dupe so many reactionary tools into buying her ridiculous screeds…and in the process selling millions of new books to progressive tools who think they’re in on the joke.
Oh come now Marcus, you can’t have a go at the Pastafarians. Well you CAN, after all they don’t believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn (May Her Hooves Be Blessed By Special Blessing Pixies Called Stanley) so therefore:
THEY MUST BE PERSECUTED TO THE ENDS OF THE EARTH LIKE THE HEATHEN SCUM THEY ARE!!!!one11!!!
Yours in love and peace
Louis
P.S. Shouldn’t it be Judeo-Christo-Islamic? At least that way it’s in chronological order? How about Judeo-Christo-Islamo-Mormon? Teach the controversy I say.
Mark in #6: Voldemohammed! LMAO! Love your work. Consider that stolen!
Frank in #41: I’ve been waiting for that day too. I wonder, what COULD be her motivation in all this…hmmm
Of course it is possible that she is merely nucking futs.
Louis
Oh and whilst I think of it, I agree with Sastra. What AC said was not anti-semitic. Stark staring bonkers, this is true. But it wasn’t anti-semitic.
The only even vaguely valid reasons for the cry of anti-semitism in this instance are:
1) Right wing fundamentalists have a history of “not being very nice to Jews”.
2) The Jewish people have generally had a “bit of a rough time in the last 70 or so years”.
The inverted commas are there for a reason. Obviously certain elements in the fundamentalist camp are quite fond of certain policies enacted in certain bits of Europe in the early to mid sections of the last century. I wouldn’t want to upset these sensitive souls by using words like “holocaust” and “genocide” and “crikey, if you are THIS dumb and hateful, it’s amazing you don’t just drum up the flimsiest excuses you can to nip off and go bomb…a…nation…of……oh wait, you have. Forget I said anything. No, no, please, persuade my bunch of twats in office it’s a good idea. We weren’t using our troops anyway.”
Louis
We all know what Judeo-Christian means.
It is a way for Xtian religious zealots to sound inclusive, and some Jews to suck up to the majority.
It almost never means that Jews are respected—usually just the opposite.
Those of us who read life from right to left know the code words. You don’t have to see an anti-semite behind every door to know that Ann Coulter told the truth for once.
Sastra is right in that AC’s muddled and obtuse theology is pretty much par for the course for most Christians in this day and age. But I don’t think THAT is what was anti-semitic (and anti-everything else that isn’t Christianity), but rather that the initial statement she made:
… was the truly abhorent one as it implies that non-Christians are not only intolerant but also unwilling to defend America.
As a side note, the back of her book claims that her insults of liberals are different than theirs of her because hers are true. She’s 1) an ex-lawyer and 2) a Republican (in the current environment), and I’m pretty sure she’s been grilled for her lack of honesty and logic in her other books. I’m curious how she would understand exactly what true means, or how to tell when something is so, because based on her actions and words, she hasn’t a passing acquaintance with truth. Has she been watching Steven Colbert too much and decided to take him literally, perhaps?
1. It’s spelled anti-Semitic.
2. “I’m pretty sure that if you asked Orthodox Jews what they really thought about Christianity — the religion itself, rather than Christians-as-people — the words “horrendous blasphemy” would be expressed, and words to that effect.”
Orthodox Jews don’t give a hoot about Christianity the religion. Don’t care a bit.
3. There’s really no such thing as Judeo-Christian. That’s Christian codespeak for Christian thinking all dressed up in fancy clothes.
That can’t be correct.
Sorry, owlmirror. Susan is absolutely correct. Jews have no interest in the doctrines of x’y as religion. And catholics do not think maybe joe smith was onto something in the book of mormon, and maybe catholics should stop drinking coffee.
The noxious behavior of x’tns is, however, a matter of some concern.
Sastra: Anti-semetic is saying the Jews are wicked, or evil, or sub-human.
If that is anti-semitic, how is calling them imperfect compared to Christians not anti-semitic? Although either way, I don’t really care. I know she’s just saying it to get attention. If only it could involve two wetsuits and a dildo.
But thinking that something is false is not exactly the same has having no interest.
They might not be interested in hearing the arguments, but that doesn’t mean they don’t care about them. They might ridicule them, or refute them, or feel offended by them, or point out the inconsistencies and absurdities, but they wouldn’t not care.
Especially when a proponent of those ideas says that they are a “perfection” and “fulfillment” of Judaism, and that all Jews should convert to Christianity. Or if a proponent of those ideas wants to marry their daughter.
So, her view is that God got tired of telling people to be good, so he sent Jesus to take all the punishment so Christians can just do whatever the hell they want and still get into heaven? And that is what makes Christians “perfected Jews”?
I think my brain just exploded.
Or, to paraphrase: “You Jews have to actually behave and do the right thing. We Christians believe we can get away with anything because somebody else will be/was punished for it!”
Indeed that is the essence of what AC said. But that’s not quite the orthodox (lower case “o”) Christian doctrine, which more completely states that anyone not a Christian (Jew, Muslim, atheist, Hindu….) is “under the law”, but because of humanity’s depraved nature and/or original sin and/or predestination everyone will certainly sin and therefore be condemned to Hell anyway. Not to mention the companion doctrine that says if a Christian is in the habit of doing bad things, they probably are not *really* Christian.
Or at least that’s what I recall from my evangelical days. But maybe AC is disseminating the McDonald’s version of Christianity Lite.
With regards to the anti-semitic nature of those remarks, I’m with Louis and the others who are trying to draw a distinction between criticizing a person’s beliefs and devaluing their personal worth. A C was just citing Jews as one type of non-Christian who doesn’t have what it takes to get to heaven (though she was certainly condescending about it). That’s only anti-semitic if you believe that heaven is a place that Jews are being unfairly kept out of.
It’s true that each religion thinks all the others are full of shit.
Even I know that her claims that the New Testament is a “continuation” of the Old is wrong. Jesus rejected a good part of it, especially the dietary restrictions and avoiding the “unclean”. More evidence that she says things for attention, not out of conviction.
well, I dunno about anti-semitic, but I sure am anti-semetic:
http://www.molbio.ku.dk/MolBioPages/abk/PersonalPages/Jesper/semetic.html
(check out the homepage for that site on biosemiotics)
:P
That’s only anti-semitic if you believe that heaven is a place that Jews are being unfairly kept out of.
uh… yeah.
somehow, I don’t think that exactly conveys what you want it to.
well, at least I hope not.
I think SASTRA hit the nail on the head and presented the MOST COGENT analysis of all of this. She did just state out loud what a lot of conservative christians say only among themselves.
That said, I’d like it if all my Coutler-despising brethren would refrain from making comments about her looks or her gender. I don’t want female pundits of ANY ideology judged by their looks The only women who should be judged by their looks are the ones who invite this type of judgment by entering beauty contests. For the rest of us, please do us the respect of addressing our opinions, as is usually done for male pundits.
I’m with you most of the way, Tex. The whole “Mann Coulter” thing rubs me the wrong way. However, I don’t completely agree that she does not invite at least some commentary on her appearance.
First, she clearly puts herself out there as a brainy manifestation of the hot-leggy-blonde archetype, and her fans lap it up. That’s no sin in and of itself, of course. Second, however, and more to the point, the number of instances of her invoking the negative stereotype of the liberal female (the fat, ugly, unshaven, Birkenstock-shod, granola-fed, tree-hugging stereotype) are virtually beyond counting.
Yeah, she invites it – consciously, I’d say, in a “Bring it on” way consistent with the relentless intellectual and ideological narcissism she regularly displays.
However, I don’t completely agree that she does not invite at least some commentary on her appearance.
yup, the looks commentaries are entirely invited by Coulter and her handlers.
hmm, maybe handlers isn’t the best word?
:p
OTOH, it could be part of a semi-clever plot:
“Let’s get my critics to focus on my looks by playing them up. Then, we can point out how superficial their criticisms are when they attack that bait.”
always two steps ahead, that Man Coulter…
Has PZ still not corrected that? It was a capybara. Smaller than a newborn hippo, AFAIK.
——————-
The “attention-whoring bullshitter” hypothesis (saying things without even caring if they are true, just for media attention) can, as far as I can see, explain all the available evidence.
Has PZ still not corrected that? It was a capybara. Smaller than a newborn hippo, AFAIK.
——————-
The “attention-whoring bullshitter” hypothesis (saying things without even caring if they are true, just for media attention) can, as far as I can see, explain all the available evidence.
But attacking her looks in that way demeans all of the people who are transgender by using them as a slur term. It’s not about her inviting commentary on her appearance as much as trying not to hurt other people in the process.
In Bush’s America, Jews need the occasional reminders of what the Christian Right really thinks of them.
It’s also adorable how she describes how everyone in her imagined utopia is ‘tolerant’.
OK. This gives me an opportunity and a justification to state for the record how disgustingly ugly she is. She hardly manages to parody “the hot-leggy-blonde archetype”.
That just had to be said.
BTW, contrary to common opinion, I don’t think she’s not anorexic. That she looks like that is not her fault: her knees — I mean the bones — are stunningly thin.
OK. This gives me an opportunity and a justification to state for the record how disgustingly ugly she is. She hardly manages to parody “the hot-leggy-blonde archetype”.
That just had to be said.
BTW, contrary to common opinion, I don’t think she’s not anorexic. That she looks like that is not her fault: her knees — I mean the bones — are stunningly thin.
OK, OK, I’m sorry if I offended anyone with the him/her jokes. They will stop.
I am transphobic though. I don’t hate transgender people, but they do freak me out a little.
I also think the Mrs. Garrison character on South Park is funny.
I sympathize with transgendered people- to an extent- and I agree that it’s not good to go out of your way to offend them as a group.
Maybe it just demeans their plastic surgeons. I’ve seen an — admittedly small — photo of a m -> f transgender person that looked much more convincing…
Maybe it just demeans their plastic surgeons. I’ve seen an — admittedly small — photo of a m -> f transgender person that looked much more convincing…
According to my little CD-ROM Webster’s, the earliest known citation of the phrase “Judeo-Christian” occurred in 1899.
Lacking immediate access to any “America was founded on J-C principles!” historical revisionists, I can only hope that someone else here will ask one how to reconcile their rhetoric with this etymology.
1) I appreciate AC’s contribution to political debate – the idea that women can be as narcissistic, wrongheaded, viteruperative, and stupid as men can be. I think it’s incorrect to conclude that her femininity has anything to do with her stupidity or her political opinions, nor that her opinions are equivalent to a lack of femininity. I wouldn’t assume that women couldn’t be sanely conservative, which is the implication of the “Ma** C******” bit – she’s just not sane (and probably not conservative either). She can be judged based on her dishonesty and hatred – the lack of content of her character – independent of the shape of her body or the type of sex organs she possesses.
2) AC’s attention-whoring works because a whole lot of stupid people lap it up – the same people who believed that the input of the “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth” (two lies in one neat package) or the Willie Horton event were appropriate and sufficient reasons to choose a president. At the moment, the stupidity seems to have garnered consequences distasteful to even the dullest troglodyte, and since the trogs don’t like a losing team, they aren’t really going to spend money buying gear for said losing team, either. Rest assured, in the next year, someone in the Republican Party will issue the appropriate call and the army of brain-dead zombies will rise again to bring “sanity” to the political “debate” – just because they aren’t willing to buy AC’s books doesn’t mean they won’t support someone just like her when game time comes.
Personally I always considered “Judeo-Christian” to mean “Christians with the token Jew just to disguise our bigotry”. She needs to be reminded that Muslims considered themselves “perfected” Christians. As for whether or not her comments are bigoted, think about what would happen if someone said to her face the same thing about her religion, that it was false and she needed to change. How would she react?
#38
strait-jacket
She has a big mouth because big mouths sell. It got her on the news again and it gets her books sold, simple as that.
I also like how she can say Christians are tolerant yet in the same sentence say Jews should be Christian.
I wish people would just ignore her rants.
Alverant (#69): There is at least one token Jew for you. Of course she can’t resist the opportunity to babble incoherently about muslims either.
As for either of them being pretty leggy blondes? I’d have to give that a resounding “neigh”. ;^)
AC’s comment on the right of women to vote is still the most offensive thing I’ve seen out of this book so far. The superstitious part, I can roll my eyes and ignore it; but her self-loathing about the women’s vote just really is offensive.
She is a warthog. I would love to see her speak at the GOP convention, and get up on the podium and let the rank and file know how she feels about rescinding the female vote.
I can’t think of a single thing that would help the Democrats more than a 20 minute AC speech on the subject. People (men and women) would simply walk out of the convention. It would be fantastic.
Go for it, AC. I challenge you to speak at the GOP convention and tell the delegates what you think of women voting. I look forward to that day.
It’s the truth, is it not?
The term “Judeo-Christian” means no more than “Gygax-Wizards of the Coastian” Gamers can argue about the true nature of D&D, but at least almost all of them know it’s not real. Jews, Christians, and Muslims are much more loosely in contact with reality,
I expect true believers of monotheistic religions to clash. How can they not. But in light of the christian belief of humans being fallen and therefore imperfect, the idea of perfecting the Jews becomes very odd. But christians have always had a strange relationship with Jews. Much better people than _nn C__lt_r have tried to resolve it. And frankly, she has neither the kindness nor will to even try.
So I ask this, is there anyone who is at all surprised by what this person said. Just remember the story the story of the frog and the scorpion. “You knew I was a scorpion when you carried me.”
I also attempt to stay away from criticism of AC’s looks as a first-line tactic, but, honestly, it gets brought up anyway.
I’ve never had a conversation with one of her defender’s where they did not, completely unbidden, throw out “she pisses off liberals, and she’s hot” as one of their first points. Then, obviously, I have no choice but to respond with a)”barf, no she isn’t” and b) “and this gives credibility to her points… how?”
Note: yes, these are all dudes. I can’t claim to travel in truly gender-equal circles, but I’ve never gotten into an argument with a woman who was an AC fan.
All I get when I visit the (correct) link is a frozen browser. Either CNN has never heard of Safari, or the emanating evil is messing up my computer.
I’m guessing it’s a bit of both.
Sastra @ #8: I tend to agree with you. It is not anti-semitic in the sense of bigotry against a grouping of people. It is just a typical religionist calling another religion wrong or not the truth.
Schmeer @ #18: LOL! best chuckle out of this thread :-)
WhatI find interesting is the tacit admission that the underpinning of Christianity(that faith in Jesus gets you to Heaven) is false as she states that jews who deny Jesus will also go.
Apparently there is more than one way. And if that’s the case isn’t she making Jesus superflous?
Doesn’t seem very Christian.
I wonder at what temperature old Annie would consider a jew to be perfected? She and her Dominionist Christian compadres should really just do the world a favor and just get raptured already. Or become atheists – perfected theists.
The ‘A’ is for AWESOME!
#74 bacopa
Coastian heretic! You must accept Gygax as the only prophet!
I think the best critique of Ann Coulter was given by Betty Bowers…
The idea that America would be better if it looked like the RNC convention is just simply anti-semitic: let’s face it, there more than a few ethnic groups and social minorities that weren’t well-represented at that event. Not just Atheists and Jews, but African Americans, Latinos, Native Americans, recent immigrants, and (non-closeted) gays don’t really seem to fit well into her plan for how our country to look like.
Dead link for me too. Using IE. What’s up?
Read comment 3.
Read comment 3.
Obviously, then, Christians are just as unperfected until they recognize the NEXT prophet and become Muslims.
I want to add my SINCERE thanks to A C for doing us littl’ole pea-pickin atheists a monumental favor by accurately and honestly exposing in a way that none of us could have ever exposed the basic bigotry and underlying danger of dogmatic thinking.
Her statements were NOTHING more sinister than actual dogma in actual religions. All Christians MUST agree with her or they by definition ain’t JC’s gang?!?!? How sweet it is in its bear-faced revelation!!
It is about time all sane people realized what they are actually signing up for in religion.. and how dangerous the underlying premise is: basically a caste system to separate tribes .. and how dangerous the down deep war-provoking notion it drives: that a caste system ain’t so bad – AS LONG AS YOU ARE (REMAIN) ON TOP!!