Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Reagan Man
This commentator has got it exactly right. And so has Ann Coulter. Confronted with a moral choice to offend political correctness or abandon her faith, Ann Coulter took the moral choice. Here are two posts which I published a few days ago in the wake of the ADA's piling on after Deutsche's ambush:

.....

It seems to me that the ADL wants to practice what it preaches that Ann Coulter may not practice: to identify another's theology as inferior.

.Ann Coulter may be a political pundit but she clearly knows very little about religious theology

...While she is entitled to her beliefs, using mainstream media to espouse the idea that Judaism needs to be replaced with Christianity and that each individual Jew is somehow deficient and needs to be "perfected," is rank Christian supersessionism and has been rejected by the Catholic Church and the vast majority of mainstream Christian denominations.

Of course Christians believe the Judaism needs to be replaced with Christianity, otherwise we would not be Christians. Equally, Jews do not believe that they should be converted to Christianity because they believe Christianity is an inferior theology, otherwise they would convert.

.................

What Deutsch did was reprehensible.

Deutsch's scheme was transparent, he intended to build his ratings by introducing controversy. On a deeper level, he sought to discredit and Coulter and by extension Republicans and conservatives by making her appear intolerant. On yet a deeper level, Deutsch was trying to move the goal posts of American discourse.

If you watch the Skirmish on You tube, you will clearly see that Deutsch ambushed Coulter and he did so for the motives outlined above. What do I mean when I say he was trying to move the goalposts of American discourse? It means that Deutsch was trying to establish as the norm is tribe's version of interfaith etiquette as opposed to my tribe's version.

A Christian is biblically mandated to proselytize. A Jew is not, nor is the idea of propagating the faith part of the Jewish tradition. It is certainly part of the Christian and Muslim tradition. For a Christian to decline to witness the "good news" is not just derelict but sinful. This is as much a part of America as Chautauqua and for an Coulter to carry the message on the airwaves-which so antagonized the ADL-is the modern extension of the Chautauqua tradition.

That tradition is not Deutsch's tradition nor is it the tradition of the ADL but they want us to adopt their tradition and forsake our own. To accomplish this goal Deutsch engaged in an ambush and the ADL came on like a jackal. The ADL wants everyone to practice religion their way. And to get their way, they and Deutsch falsely accuse practicing Christians of being intolerant. And Coulter did not, for example, suggest that " Jews are inferior to Christians...." She referred to a biblical doctrine and not to Jews or their "deficiencies", nor is the need for "perfection" limited to Jews. Ann Coulter did not open the discussion rather she several times tried to deflect it but it was Deutsch who repeatedly brought it back to Jews, and to himself, and accused her of the invidious judgments. He put Coulter in a position of having to forsake her faith or break the Deutsch/ADL politically correct taboo.

If Deutsch and the ADL get their way, Christians lose their way, that is, their path to God. Nearly as bad, they would make it illegitimate to practice Christianity. They would make us choose between our doctrine and a new kind of political correctness which says that you must forsake your faith rather than offend.

That is why what Deutsch did was reprehensible.


93 posted on 10/13/2007 11:49:54 PM PDT by nathanbedford ("I like to legislate. I feel I've done a lot of good." Sen. Robert Byrd)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]


To: nathanbedford
If Deutsch and the ADL get their way, Christians lose their way, that is, their path to God. Nearly as bad, they would make it illegitimate to practice Christianity. They would make us choose between our doctrine and a new kind of political correctness which says that you must forsake your faith rather than offend.

That is why what Deutsch did was reprehensible.

Excellent analysis. Ann did not bring up the subject. It was forced upon her time and again. She answered in the sweetest and least belligerent manner possible. There was no malice on her part and no attempt to be judgmental. Rather, she portrayed the very point she had been making throughout the interview: Marxists are offended when she speaks truth as she knows it.

Deutsch tried again and again to portray her as an inflammatory publicist. She countered again and again that truth is the enemy of the PC crowd.

Deutsch was most offensive when he read the line from his notes declaring his offense at Ann expressing her faith. By his transparent malice, once again the enemies of truth and decency have been defeated.

112 posted on 10/14/2007 6:57:20 AM PDT by Louis Foxwell (here come I, gravitas in tow.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies ]

To: nathanbedford
I think you place far too much emphasis on Danny Deutsch and Ann Coulter. After all, they’re just entertainers and Coulter is hawking another book. They both have a right to free speech and both enjoy engaging in public head butting, but neither one are religious leaders. I don’t take either one seriously.

When I read Coulter’s remarks I thought they were off the wall and bigoted. Ann wants the controversy so she’ll sell more books. Whatever.

123 posted on 10/14/2007 8:12:23 AM PDT by Reagan Man (FUHGETTABOUTIT Rudy....... Conservatives don't vote for liberals!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson