Ann Coulter: Episcopalians Aren’t Christians, but Jews Are
by: Rev. DanIt’s been my intent to avoid commenting on Ann Coulter’s new book (Godless: The Church of Liberalism) because she’s sorely lacking in the intellect department (sorry Sofyst, your future ex-wife is a moron), rarely has anything of substantive value to say, and “any press is good press.” However, this is a good example of the horseshit “Christians” spew:
From MediaMatters.org:
A footnote on Page 3 of the book reads: “Throughout this book, I often refer to Christians and Christianity because I am a Christian and I have a fairly good idea of what they believe, but the term is intended to include anyone who subscribes to the Bible of the God of Abraham, including Jews and others.” [emphasis added]
…
As for Episcopalians, they might be disheartened to learn that they will not be welcoming their newly Christian Jewish friends into the brotherhood of Christ, because they don’t quite measure up as a church. Coulter writes on Page 5, “Howard Dean left the Episcopal Church — which is barely even a church — because his church, in Montpelier, Vermont, would not cede land for a bike path.” [emphasis added]
The millions of Episcopalians in America — among whose numbers have been many presidents, including George Washington, James Madison, Franklin Roosevelt, and George H.W. Bush — might be interested to know Coulter’s view of their faith.
Coulter’s schtick is to spew nonsensical, vitriolic, polarizing excrement and to self-promote: to cash in on the current trend of intolerance and non-reason by promoting absurdity. However, the problem is that she has a market. There are morons who buy her books and consider her to be a news source. Coulter is not a news source. She’s a source of inane, intolerant, dangerous commentary, and milks the ignorant for their money.
Matt Lauer recently asked her about the following comments she’d written regarding 9/11 Widows (video clip available here):
“These self-obsessed women seemed genuinely unaware that 9/11 was an attack on our nation and acted as if the terrorist attacks happened only to them.” [p.103]
“[T]hey believed the entire country was required to marinate in their exquisite personal agony. Apparently, denouncing Bush was an important part of their closure process.” [p.103]
“These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzis. I’ve never seen people enjoying their husbands’ deaths so much.” [p.103]
I’m betting that Keith Olberman will name her “Worst Person in the World” soon, unless Papa Bear does something even more outrageously stupid in the next few days. If you’re a rubbernecker and enjoy trainwrecks, then you’d probably find Ann Coulter to be quite the fountain of mirth.
Agreed. I got a million dollars that Olberman names her the Worst Person in the World, if he hasn’t already. I have seen Satan and her name is Ann Coulter. Pure evil, she is.
I’m glad I didn’t bet… I’d be a million dollars in debt.
Go Olberman!
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/06/07.html#a8626
This choice quote is from the Crooks and Liars comments:
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/06/07.html#a8626
– quote –
Exerpt from book (In which Coulter does not attack the 9/11 widows because she’s not allowed to): “And BTW, how do we know their husbands weren’t planning to divorce these harpies? Now that their shelf life is dwindling, they’d better hurry up and appear in Playboy…”
– end quote –
Amazingly, the clip from Countdown has Tucker Carlson talking with Coulter and BEING REASONABLE. Amazing.
You know, I’m not a follower of Ann Coulter, and I don’t really know anything about her works. But in this situation she’s just playing with semantics. “Christ” is short for the greek word “Christos”, which means “Anointed One”. And “Christian” is short for “Christianos”, the greek word meaning “follower of Christ”. But in English the term has been sorely diluted. So to argue what is or is not a Christian seems awfully futile to me.
I think your comments can be summarized with: “I have no idea what you’re talking about, so I’m going to give you my opinion anyways.”
Please don’t bother.
Why do you act like this, Dan? Why are you so mean towards me? Do you behave like this towards everyone in your life? Do you always refuse to consider anyone else’s perspective? Is everyone wrong except you?
Yes, I treat everyone in my life as honestly and directly as I possibly can. If you find my replies to be acerbic, yet again may I remind you that the world and the internet are both vast and large and that I don’t own a monopoly on either. Please find a community which values your commentary/input. I do not.
I am a fan of debate/dissent, but abhor false arguments and horseshit. I think this is another example of where you’ve got things backwards and need to ask yourself the questions you’ve posed to me.
I think a better question, however, is this: Why do you, Tidy Bowl, insist on visiting a blog and attempt to participate though you’re unwilling to invest the time to actually understand what the blog’s about, or even, as this case demonstrates, have ANY KNOWLEDGE WHATSOEVER of the particular subject of the post?
Apparently you’re unwilling to invest the time to click a link and watch a four-minute video clip so that you might actually have something relevant or interesting to post. I’m calling a spade a spade, and I’m calling your posts ignorant because they’re ignorant.
I’ve asked you nicely to invest your time/effort elsewhere and you’ve continued to post irrelevant tripe. You’re essentially an internet troll, and one that I’m going to discontinue feeding.
Dan, I apologize for the apparently heinous offense I have committed. But since I first commented on your blog, I have been very confused. Yes, I am a Christian. I stumbled onto your blog and assumed it was a Christian blog because so many of the posts appear to be written from a Christian perspective. But your comments seem to speak otherwise, and I’ve only answered honestly to try and understand what perspective you are coming from.
You say you don’t agree with false arguments; perfectly reasonable. I don’t mind that. But please explain to me WHY my arguments are false.
You say that I refuse to invest the time to understand what a blog is about, which completely baffles me, since I always spend at least a half-hour reading related articles on the internet about each post’s topic before I comment.
And what is this four minute video link that you are talking about?
Again, you say my comments are ignorant. I don’t mind that; in fact, if you could show me some proof of my ignorance (i.e. scientific, medical, psychologic, etc. facts) I’ll probably change my mind. Just tell me why I’m wrong.
I’m so sorry that I’ve offended you. I’m just confused.
> I have been very confused.
Either that or doing a very genius impersonation of a stereotype/demographic I have no respect for… ala Stephen Colbert.
> I stumbled onto your blog and assumed it was a Christian blog
As far as I am able to discern, this blog is just software, not a sentient being. Therefore I don’t believe it has accepted Jesus Christ as its “personal Savior,” nor is it capable of doing so. Perhaps in alternate realities God has alternate plans for dealing with things, as C.S. Lewis proposed regarding his Narnia series. I’m personally unaware of software needing a personal savior… beyond a good Quality Engineer and a competent Software Developer.
To assume is to make an ass of “u” and me.
As far as the content of this blog is concerned, all contributors have been up-front with their positions and stories. If you’d taken the time to read it and listen to the podcasts you’d have an awareness of what Outchurched is about, instead of a highly-mistaken assumption.
> I’ve only answered honestly
Honest ignorance is still ignorance.
> You say that I refuse to invest the time to understand what a
> blog is about, which completely baffles me, since I always
> spend at least a half-hour reading related articles on the
> internet about each post’s topic before I comment.
Apparently, I was mistaken. The issue is not that you haven’t spent any time reading the content, but that you have an issue with reading comprehension. I think the solution to that problem is self-evident.
> And what is this four minute video link that you are talking about?
You mean the one that I linked to in this post; the post you claim to have spent “at least a half-hour” reading?
> if you could show me some proof of my ignorance
Please re-read almost everything you’ve posted here. A good example, in this comment thread, is “And what is this four minute video link that you are talking about?”
I’m of the belief that digging in to any of the crap issues you’ve raised would be akin to trying to explain why things are funny to someone with no sense of humor. In this case, it appears to be the same thing (you appear to have neither a “clue” nor a sense of humor).
> I’m so sorry that I’ve offended you.
I’m not offended by you any more than I’m offended by the ignorant, self-righteous, jackass demographic that it appears that you belong to and are attempting to represent. Your comments are either worthy of my contempt or are absolutely brilliant (if you are, in fact, Colbert-ing us).
> I’m just confused.
These are not the droids you’re looking for. Move along.
This was my first non-one-liner response to your comments:
> The content of Outchurched will likely not be to your liking, or
> may be difficult to understand if you’re unwilling to participate
> in dialog with anybody other than Jesus. Personally, I wonder
> why anybody unwilling to engage in culture around them
> would bother to look at some site on the internet and take
> the time to comment. Nonetheless, good luck to you.
My reply stands, though I’m not being as “nicey-nice” about it now. Your reply to that was:
> But I hope you don’t mind my presence here, as I am very
> curious as to how you think.
> I’ll probably change my mind.
You’ve proven this comment to be horseshit. I’m uninterested in allowing you to continue to waste my time with your nonsense. You are an internet troll, and this is the last response you will receive from me. In the interest of saving myself the effort of having to delete any further detrius you might post here, I’ve added you to the spam filter. Congratulations for being Outchurch’s most persistent troll, and for gaining the distinction of being the first and only person banned.
Please direct any further comments/complaints to Jesus Christ, Son of God, King of Kings. I’m guessing that I don’t need to forward contact information as you profess to know Him yourself.