Ann Coulter Wants Jews To Become Christian - So What? (Dennis Prager On Liberal Hypocrisy Alert)

Townhall.com ^ | 10/16/2007 | Dennis Prager

[goldstategop]

Those who label Ann Coulter an anti-Semite do damage to the battle against anti-Semitism.

I say this as a committed Jew, a religious Jew, a Jewish writer and lecturer, a past college instructor in Jewish history, co-author of a widely read book on anti-Semitism, recipient of the American Jewish Press Association's Prize for Excellence in Jewish Commentary, instructor in Torah at the American Jewish University, and a man who has fought anti-Semitism all his life.

There is nothing in what Ann Coulter said to a Jewish interviewer on CNBC that indicates she hates Jews or wishes them ill, or does damage to the Jewish people or the Jewish state. And if none of those criteria is present, how can someone be labeled anti-Semitic?

What damage has she ever done to Jews? What is wrong with a person believing that it would be better if another person adopted their faith? Is there one liberal who doesn't believe that a conservative would be better -- "perfected," if you will -- by embracing liberal beliefs and values? Why is it laudable for a liberal to hope that conservatives convert to liberalism, but dangerous and hate-filled when a Christian hopes that Jews or anyone else will go to heaven (that is, after all, Ann Coulter's and most other Christians' primary concern) by believing in Jesus?

I have read Jewish and non-Jewish writers who argue that Ann Coulter's words will lead to another Auschwitz. How does one respond to irrationality? How does one respond to hysteria?

There is also a move to boycott Ann Coulter, so dangerous are her words. Of course, there is no such Jewish or liberal boycott of former President Jimmy Carter, who has done real damage to the Jewish people by describing Israel as an "apartheid" state in the very title of his anti-Israel book. In fact, Carter was invited to speak on his loathsome book at Brandeis University, an ostensibly Jewish university. But for many Jews and liberals, real hatred, real damage to Jewish security can only come from the right, especially from Christians on the right. So Ann Coulter, who has done nothing in her life to compromise Jewish welfare, is to be boycotted, but Jimmy Carter is worthy of invitations to speak. Jewish groups even invite John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt, the authors of "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy," which is essentially a tempered modern-day version of "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion." But Ann Coulter is beyond the pale. And she said nothing to harm Jews.

She said she believes that Jews who accept Jesus as their savior are "perfected." I fail to see why this is some form of hate-speech, let alone the basis of anti-Semitism, as stated by Abe Foxman, director of the Anti-Defamation League, which often defames conservative Christians, whom he and his organization hold to be the greatest domestic threats to America.

As a practicing Jew, I do not agree with Ann Coulter's theology any more than those attacking her do. But I am neither offended by her nor frightened by her or her beliefs. She believes that Christianity is better than Judaism. So what? Why is that in any way different from liberals thinking that liberalism is truer and morally superior to conservatism? Or conservatives thinking that their values are superior to liberal values?

Liberals not only believe that conservatives are philosophically imperfect, but they often believe that conservatives are bad human beings (something in no way implied by Coulter about Jews). Howard Dean has said that conservatives don't care about children who go to bed hungry. Liberals yearn for a world without conservatives at least as much as most believing Christians want a world without non-Christians. The difference is many liberals are immeasurably more likely to impose their views on others than Christian Americans are. Liberal judges impose their views -- e.g., on same-sex marriage -- on society. And liberal educators force young students to watch Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth," the former vice president's hysterical beliefs about impending doom -- and offer no countering viewpoint.

As fate and irony would have it, this past Sunday night I was the keynote speaker at the Cornerstone Church in San Antonio, Texas. Since 1981, the church, led by Pastor John Hagee, has had an annual "Night to Honor Israel." Five thousand Christians came to this year's event, where they heard and sang Hebrew songs and watched their pastor give $8 million to various Israeli and Jewish charities.

Those are Ann Coulter's people, and they are, by and large, the best friends the Jewish people have today. And since Judaism teaches that we judge others by their behavior, not their beliefs, this Jew thanks them. And fears those who fear them. One day, God forbid, should there be real anti-Semitism in America, these hysterics will have cried wolf so many times that no one will listen.

[x_plus_one]

In your exceptional writings and pronouncements, you have reflected your understanding of Judaism as a living heritage, of the permanent validity of God's covenant with the Jewish people and of the abhorrent sin that is anti-Semitism. And just this past summer, our two communities – Jewish and Catholic – stated in the final communiqué of the 18th meeting of the Catholic Jewish Liaison Committee: "We draw encouragement from the fruits of our collective strivings which include the recognition of the unique and unbroken covenantal relationship between God and the Jewish people and the total rejection of anti-Semitism in all its forms, including anti-Zionism as a more recent manifestation of anti-Semitism."

http://www.adl.org/PresRele/VaticanJewish_96/4607_96.htm

Jewsish Antidefamation League on Pope John Paul...

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

Many of these are not catholic.

The point is that only Catholics have a religious obligation to consider the Pope's teachings. As far as the others are concerned, no one on earth has a religious obligation to pay them any attention whatsoever.

IMHO your argument is a good example of the argumentum ad authoritatum logical fallacy.

[avant_garde]

You need to fully understand what you are reading before making comments on them. IMHO, Dennis Prager has the most in depth perception and clarity of thought concerning conservative and liberal views than any radio personality on the radio. Also, he is very supportive of conservatives and Christians. Accusing Prager of having mental illness of liberalism is like accusing Rush Limbaugh of hating the military.

[taxesareforever]

Sounds like Michael Savage isn’t of the same opinion as Prager. Michael’s feelings got hurt and now we can see some of what Michael is made of.

[rogue yam]

Those who label Ann Coulter an anti-Semite do damage to the battle against anti-Semitism.

I agree with the author that the criticism of Ann is ultimately bad for the Jews, but it is also simply unfair to Ann and I wish the author had stated this as well.

[rogue yam]

Ann Coulter’s view that Jews are “imperfect” Christians is harmful to the Jewish-Christian dialogue in America.

I don't think it is legitimate the way you have used the word "imperfect" here, particularly since you put it in quotes and say that this is Ann's view. Ann did not use the word "imperfect". She did use the word "perfected" which has a theological usage in the Bible that is quite different from the opposite of the meaning of the word "imperfect" as used in common speech. You have mischaracterized Ann's statement and opinion in my estimation.

[Altura Ct.]

Is it any wonder that PC manipulates almost EVERYTHING we do in this country. It is the main reason the GOP is infested with RINOS. Americans are owned and without a backbone. Our country is going to hell in a handbasket and we seem helpless to stop it.

[camerakid400]

Well, my argument was that Ann Coulter has poisoned the dialogue between Jews and Christians with her statement that is not reflective of modern Christian teachings by several major christian organizations, as indicated by the wikipedia article explaining Christian-Jewish reconciliation.

If she wanted to preach Christianity, she should have talked about Jesus and the benefits of Christianity in society, rather than saying Jews were somehow inferior to Christians as humans. She may not have meant that Jews were inferior, but thats what it sounded like to the viewer. She didn’t even mention Jesus in the conversation.

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

She didn’t even mention Jesus in the conversation.

Jesus = Christ = Christian.

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

She may not have meant that Jews were inferior, but thats what it sounded like to the viewer.

If the viewer was both ignorant and biased, that would be true.

[xzins]

I laughed when I read that. The Christians are such good friends of the Jews, that they want to convert them.

Are you really surprised that Christians wish for others to be Christian?

[bray]

Ever notice how Liberals never say anything offensive??

Pray for W and Our Troops

[onedoug]

And?...

[Gritty]

More common sense from Dennis Prager...

[teeman8r]

michael savage condemns the left for not airing his speech at the awarding of a first amendment award he was giving... yet when someone speaks about something he is emotional on like ann coulter, he condemns her for saying it.

hypocracy at its best.

teeman

[Gilbo_3]

not reflective of modern Christian teachings by several major christian organizations, as indicated by the wikipedia article explaining Christian-Jewish reconciliation.

wikipedia is your source for Christian-Jewish info ???

You might wanna try Old Testament-New Testament in the future. Doctrine is pretty clear IMO, and Ann simply offered a choice in faith according to that doctrine.

Libs and mussies are the one who DEMAND conversion "OR ELSE"...

[Arthur McGowan]

At the Last Supper, after giving the apostles his Body and Blood in the Sacrament of the Eucharist, Jesus commanded them to repeat his action: “Do this in memory of me.” Jesus’ last command to the apostles before the Ascension is “Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” Which suggests that Jesus cared about doctrine (”TEACH all nations”) AND ritual acts (the sacraments) as well as ethics.

[ripley]

sounds like you search for evil conservatives behind every
corner.

[the808bass]

Ann Coulter’s view that Jews are “imperfect” Christians is harmful to the Jewish-Christian dialogue in America.

For a Christian pretend that Christianity does not see itself as the natural continuation of God's relationship with humanity does nothing to help "dialogue." It only serves to keep everyone talking at a table and saying nothing. That's not dialogue. It's polite avoidance of 1+1=2. I suppose that Jewish denunciation of Christain doctrine is "not nice" and should get someone panties somewhere in a wad.

[my_pointy_head_is_sharp]

Oh, please! Prager's not saying that liberalism is morally superior. He's saying that liberals 'think' that it is.

I don't think that liberals think that liberalism is morally superior. How could liberals argue that any of their positions are from a position of moral superiority? Since they don't even HAVE morals, as someone said. That's my point.

Prager is ascribing to liberalism a morality that I don't think even the liberals think they have. Liberals want to lower the age of consent to 14. What's moral about that? They want drugs to be legalized. What's moral about that? They want abortion to be legal (and it is). What's moral about that? I could go on and on.

None of their viewpoints are from a position of morality -- they want to do away with traditional morality, as we know it. So for Prager to come along and say that liberals think they have moral superiority is ridiculous. I think some of you misunderstood my point.

I also never accused Prager himself of being a liberal. But I HAVE disagreed with him in the past, and expect on occasion to disagree with him in the future.