And so it only follows that we should invade any nation which is NOT Christian, kill their leaders, and force them to convert to Christianity at gunpoint just like good old Ann said we should.
Right?
Dishonest.
Blind loyalty however, is just plain silly.
She said something pretty damned stupid.
You may wish to forgive her for that and that's just fine.... but for goodness sake don't defend the stupidity.
Of course, your point is very well taken.
Well, let's be fair. I don't think Ann is saying we should invade every country that's not Christian. Just the countries that explicitly and implicitly support the Islamic Revolution.
But she may have gone too far. I'm not sure we'd have to actively convert anyone. I'd bet that after a couple of generations of benevolent occupation (as opposed to installing yet another despotic "royal" family) most of the young people would either just become secular consumers like most of the West or actually adopt Christian values by choice.
But, to be even more fair, except for the conversion bit, what Ann said wasn't so much different from what the Ayn Rand Institute said. Peikoff just said things slowly and less emotionally. (The essay has been multiple posted, but this is the only thread I have handy: Hey Libertarian! The Ayn Rand Institute Has A Message For YOU! )
Mark W.
Could you and the rest of the people so offended by Coulter's comment please at least have the intellectual integrity to drop the "forcible" BS? Ann never used any words implying forcible conversion. In fact, there is no way that genuine conversion to Christianity could be forcible.
Personally, I thought the comment in Ann's column was a bit over the edge. However, I was able to comprehend her rage at the pond scum who had carried out this egregious act of terrorism and murdered her very good friend. Therefore, I can cut her some slack for a harshly worded statement like this.
The column directed this rage also at people who would dance in the streets celebrating this attack. For those people, Ann said "invade their countries," (if they celebrate and support the attack this is not unreasonable) "kill their leaders," (remove the leadership that promotes terrorist attacks on the U.S. -- again a reasonable proposal) "and convert them to Christianity." (I don't see how you could read this statement and not see this last phrase as anything but a tongue-in-cheek satirical poke at the whole jihad idea of conquering all non-Islam religions, but even if you take this at face value as a serious suggestion -- then teaching people about the love of Jesus even though they hate you is what Jesus commanded his people to do anyway.)