I never said Ann was being pushy with her views, I said she was an ASS to have said what she did.
“The basis of this moral condemnation” (your choice of words; I just think it was a dumb thing to say):
Well, let’s see. It was insensitive, as she used a word (perfection) which was commonly used during WWII as a way of justifying exterminating Jews and which gave the reason for a supposedly superior race doing the exterminating. I think it was a poor choice of words. I stand by that.
I am not disagreeing with her on any theological point. I am agreeing with the bulk of people who think she went too far. If this isn’t valid enough for you, I will still sleep tonight. I think you are looking for detailed theological explanations where none are needed, or you’re spoiling for a fight over scripture. I am a layperson, Andy, not a theological student or priest or nun. I also happen not to think I need to have only a theological justification for something being wrong, nor do I have to give a theological basis for my feelings. That is not the community in which I choose to live. To quote a Supreme Court Justice, “it’s a little like pornography; you know it when you see it.” Ann was wrong for having said something unnecessarily offensive, against a group who did nothing to her, and she used a word that I think was chosen poorly, especially given the events of the 20th century and even threats commonly made today by certain despotic leaders. Why this is not clear to you, I’m not sure. You seem bent on defending her, or defending the expression she made.
I also do not feel that Jews need to be converted. I think they have their God, they are a Godly people, and a tight knit community. They could do worse. So I am not in favor of giving them any crappola. I feel her remark did that and I stand by what I feel, and incidentially, what a lot of other people feel as well.
One really must stretch for that connection, and we both know she was alluding to nothing of the sort. There is a point at which the fault of the offense lies with the offendee and not the offender. This is way over that line.
The underlying problem is not that you were offended. Despite what you say you were not. Sorry, just don't believe you. The underlying problem is that you are afraid of hyper-sensitive left wing mega-whiners that might get offended at you for failing to act offended. After a while, it permeates into the rest of us that must live with the mega-whiners, and we go along feigning offense at anything that they might not like.
I am not disagreeing with her on any theological point. I am agreeing with the bulk of people who think she went too far.
Went too far? Another term that presumes that she volunteered an opinion she was not asked to. As if she decided to make a prepared announcement. Again I must remind you she was not choosing to "go there". Deutsch choose to "go there". So if "there" was too far, why do you chose to blame Ann? Answer: Deustch is not the target of the mega-whiners. Ann is the conservative. You have been conditioned to worry about offending people like Deutsch. You have certainly not been conditioned to worry about offending people like Coulter.
Don't believe me? Consider the opposite scenario. Coulter grills Deutsch on his religious beliefs. Then she ceases upon something she finds offensive and berates him for it. In such a scenario who would the mega-whiners say went too far? Why again it would be Coulter! So if you are a "sensitive" member of "polite society", you had best act like you agree.
Its up to you. Let the mega-whiners control you, or have the courage to form your opinions without being hyper sensitive to how they might intentionally misconstrue what you said.