Posted on 10/02/2001 9:14:04 AM PDT by truthandlife
Conservative columnist Ann Coulter, fired from her contributing editor perch at the National Review Online, blames it on free-speech hysteria in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks. In a recent online column, Coulter opined that the United States should respond forcefully to the terrorist attacks: "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity," she said. The comment provoked an uproar, and the National Review Online subsequently refused to run another Coulter piece in which she referred to "swarthy males." When Coulter complained, she was fired. Tuesday's Washington Post quotes Coulter as saying she doesn't need friends like that. "Every once in awhile they'll throw one of their people to the wolves to get good press in left-wing publications," she told the newspaper. National Review Online Editor Jonah Goldberg told the Post, "We didn't feel we wanted to be associated with the comments expressed in those two columns." Coulter told the Washington Post she's getting great publicity as a result of the flap.
They were not converted. They were forced to act as if they had been converted. Conversion only comes through the Spirit.
Good point, well taken, SLJP, and my apologies for being one of the contributors to the sidetracking. Methinks the underlying objection to certain words used in Ann's 9/13 in-the-heat-of-passion column is the "politically incorrect" implication that "converting them to Christianity" is somehow offensive to Muslims, Jews and the secular crowd. Those who buy the current revisionist history version of the orginal Crusades of a millenium ago.
IMHO, Ann Coulter was fired because certain words in her column were considered "politically incorrect" by those who harbor a basic contempt for Christianity and it's teachings. And, given NR's history of publishing other "politically incorrect" articles, NR has shown a huge amount of hypocrisy by firing her for this particular column.
Please admit that you recognize the grammatical effect of separating those words in different clauses. - Ann said 'convert' because she ment convert in the accepted protestant, Christian sense; i.e. the deliverance of those sorely oppressed persons would permit the spirit of God to work in their lives, and they would most likely be converted.
So she'd rather lose her job than risk being patronizing by explaining a joke? Ridiculous. She wouldn't stick to her guns to defend her statement if it wasn't something she believed wholeheartedly. And if it were nonetheless a joke, it should be clear to her now that people just don't get it, so what does she stand to lose by explaining it?
Let's see. They were forbidden on pain of torture or death from observing Jewish Law. They were forced on pain of torture or death to profess and practice Christianity. But it wasn't really a forced conversion because "conversion only comes through the Spirit". Nice rationalization.
And exactly why their actions are immoral.
If that is really the way she meant it, then it couldn't possibly be satirical.
If I had MEANT Jonah of the Bible, I WOULD HAVE SAID SO.
I was simply trying to stay on subject...hence my argument that Biblical references do not bear substance in this argument...and only through your post did I finally break forth with an indirect reference.
Like you, I would NEVER advocate "conversion" through the sword, despite the fact that there are plenty of references of this occurance in the Old Testament. And my lips may mouth agreement, but one will never capture my thoughts and spirit. The rebellion you DONT see is more powerful than the one you do...right???
I saw nothing wrong in Anne's article, and my opinion of Goldberg has gone down because of this. Her words were reactive maybe, but no different than the ones I have had in the wake of the attack. I remember enough of my MidEast/African history to know that her response is the logical one. Americans have NO IDEA what they are facing...and as it has been voiced NUMEROUS times on this forum, diplomacy and neutrality and 'courts of justice' and rule of law are no longer the options we can fall back on. We are at war, and in war, you break things, blow things up, and kill people. Americans need to get used to that.
The word "satire" has a specific meaning. It is simple to compare the meaning of the word with a specific piece of writing and to determine whether or not that writing fits the definition of "satire". No psychic abilities required at all. Coulter's comments were not satire.
See my #268.
Now, that I agree with! I was terribly confused by the whole thing, especially considering that the main topic of Ann's 9/13 column was Barbara, and Barbara is Jewish. (I say "is" because I firmly believe she is with us in spirit, and I know she is with Ann in spirit!) Ann will land on her feet, big-time. This entire ridiculous flap raised by the ignorant is only going to bolster Ann's popularity. I look forward to seeing her work in more high-profile publications, and in a book of her own! She was profoundly affected by the tragic events of 9/11 -- losing Barbara, having the NRO drop her and make a lot of noise about it, etc. I, for one, will be first in line to purchase several copies of that book.
Thank you for explaining that, and for allowing me to opine as well! ;-}
Ann was simply wrong.
I understand the emotions which gave rise to the position she espoused. She lost a dear friend in this disgusting and cowardly attack. She responded with a statement which can best be described as hyperbole, but was nevertheless the wrong thing to say. I am inclined to excuse her words in recognition of the pain she has endured, and in recognition of the spirited defense she posits in support of many things with which I agree.
But excusing those words is not the same thing as defending them.
Sorry... but Ann was wrong.
There is always a specific jpg (or gif or png) -- you might have to look in the HTML source though (View -> Source).
Quite true. I was an offensive thing to say. Anyway, why would anyone want to force a rteligious persuasion on someone else.
If Biblical references do not bear substance in this argument, then they do not bear substance in any argument.
Either the Bible answers every Ethical question which a Christian may have, or it answers none.
There is no middle ground, no gray area, ever.
Like you, I would NEVER advocate "conversion" through the sword, despite the fact that there are plenty of references of this occurance in the Old Testament.
Such as?
Fear of capitals?
Again - they were forced to ACT as if they were converted. Conversion is internal and is brought about by the Spirit. Forcing someone to profess or practice a religion does not bring about conversion - only the external appearance of conversion. Surely you possess the cognitive skill to understand this.
And to base your attacks upon the actions of one nation during a relatively brief period of time of all Christian history is indicative of your anti-Christian bias.
'Nuf said.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.