Coulter Never Said, "Convert 'em at Gunpoint!"

Me ^ | October 3, 2001 | 537 Votes

[537 Votes]

Just to clarify a little point here: Ann Coulter never said, "Convert Muslims at gunpoint."

This is what she actually wrote in her recent, controversial column ("This is War", Sept 12): "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."

Now, let's think about this. Just exactly what are we planning to do with Osama bin Laden and the Taliban?

Well, we're going to invade Afghanistan. So yes, just Ann Coulter said, we ARE going to invade their country.

Then we're going to kill the leaders. Yes, I know: we'll have a fair trial. And if -- wonders beyond belief -- it turns out they're innocent, we'll let them go. But whoever did do this, we certainly will kill their leaders. It's called the 'Death Penalty.'

Or in the words of George W. Bush: "Wanted: Dead or Alive."

So once again, we intend to do exactly what Ann Coulter said we should do.

Finally, are we going to allow Christian missionaries into Afghanistan? Yes.

Then is it possible that they'll convert Afghans to Christianity? Yes.

Just like Ann Coulter said. So what's the problem here? The way she said it -- or the way certain people read it? Well, we can only go so far in appeasing those who can't read simple sentences in standard english. Beyond a certain point, our hedging and qualifying will only make us look like Girlie-Men.

In his recent editorial, 'L'Affaire Coulter,' Jonah Goldberg states that his primary complaint about Coulter had to do not with what she said, but with her 'sloppy writing.' Yet, as shown above, she stated exactly what we're going to do, and she stated it precisely.

"Sloppy writing" is hardly an accusation that Goldberg should fling around, but that's another story. Suffice to say, under his inspired leadership, NRO -- inheritor of what was once the biggest name in conservative media -- gets about as many hits as LewRockwell.com. Or, about 1/30th as many as the Drudge Report. As Wired Magazine would say, "The eyeballs have spoken."

[B-Chan]

Thanks. Nobody wants to hear it, though. "A prophet is without honor in his own country."

[B-Chan]

I wasn't being sarcastic, and of course I speak only for myself.

[ConsistentLibertarian]

"overthrowing their Islamic cultures and replacing them with Christian cultures". Details seem hard to come by. Suppose you invade and occupy islamic countries everywhere. Then what? You've got hundreds of millions of people who are mad at you and who are determined to continue in their faith and who are teaching it to their kids at home. And you're goint to do what? Put "Touched by and Angel" on TV?

[ConsistentLibertarian]

People tend not to be kooks on just one subject.

[Egg]

The post-modernists now feel they've got the goods on Anne, and they're trying to beat the bushes. Apparently, they feel that they're the only ones qualified to criticize the beliefs of others. These PC hypocrites are a major source of America's ills.

[JMJ333]

Oh come on, Torie...you know Ann meant to convert these people without force!!

After we killed their leaders, I'm sure they'd roll out the welcome wagon for our missionaries.

[TLBSHOW]

When this all started a few nights ago there was some posts by someone named Original Intent. Hummm could it be Ann herself? Just my guess.

forced conversion? sheesh. Back to the dark ages.

There it is again. I have seen this accusatory presumption many times.

I did not see anything about Forced Conversion to anything.

I have heard many liberals jump to the same conclusion.

This conclusion is usually reserved to those who have an unnatural fear of proselytizing of any kind.

I never assumed she meant forced converstion, therefore I will give her the benefit of the doubt.

Since I usually agree with true traditional American conservatives, I do not have a default mechanism set up that automatically assumes the worst meaning from the mouth of a Christian conservative.

I think we should give this ally the benefit of the doubt.

I presume what she really meant was that we need to get rid of the murderers who keep these people away from the truth; that keep these people in the bondage of a false religion that will produce yet more terrorists in the future.

Ann was rightly getting directly to the root of the problem; the leaders will kill anyone who would attempt to give them a chance to hear the tenets of biblical Christianity, so they are stuck with this religion of terrorism that they have. You have to get rid of the Osama bin Ladens

Her sentiments are much like General Douglas MacArthur's at the end of World War 2; he pushed hard to send as many Christian missionaries as possible to Japan to replace the anscestor and emperor worship that was the existing religion (their leaders were already either dead or powerless). He saw this religion as inferior to Christianity and also as a reason for their aggression.

She is just wanting to get rid of the underlying problem, the religion of following the koran as it is written.

and this

MacArthur was not fired for wanting to convert Japan to Christianity; that is, he was not fired for working to send Christian missionaries to Japan to convert them to Christianity.

He was fired for strongly disagreeing with and disobeying Truman's wishes in the Korean war..

Conservatives supported Mac's idea of sending Christian missionaries to Japan. He did not get in trouble for that, but was supported.

MacArthur did not say anything about forced conversion, neither did Ann Coulter.

Liberals are the only ones who have said "forced conversion"

Well?

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3bb949de2bc1.htm

[Egg]

Anyone who thinks a person could be converted to (protestant) Christianity by force does not understand Christianity. I'm sure Coulter does not belong to that category.

[ConsistentLibertarian]

"Ann, we love you, and we will never abandon you. Never." What would you pay for a Budweiser calender or a Monster Truck calendar featuring Ann? I ask because she said she wants publicity and I'm trying to brainstorm and see where she could make the biggest splash.

[N00dleN0gg1n]

In his recent editorial, 'L'Affaire Coulter,' Jonah Goldberg states that his primary complaint about Coulter had to do not with what she said, but with her 'sloppy writing.'

If you read his column carefully, he's referring to the sloppy writing in the column he refused to run which he also refers to as a "rant." If she'd been able to cool down a bit and give a detailed, reasoned defense of the "convert them to Christianity" thing, he'd probably have run it.

[anniegetyourgun]

Lighten up all - Ann was speaking tongue-in-cheek. No, she is not even herself a Christian, other than in the sense that some call themselves that because they were raised to attend church at Christmastime, sometimes went to mass, or lives in America. Beyond that, it is not possible to "convert" someone to Christianity - but don't take that from me, the good Lord has already spoken on that one. And anyone who has in centuries past attempted to do so was not following Christian doctrine - regardless of what they called themselves.

[B-Chan]

Roughly the same thing we did with emperor-worshipers in Japan. Early on, the occupied territories would be under martial law. The practice of Islam would be tolerated, but unlawful assembly, protests, riots, etc. would be put down with maximum force. This would continue until any Jihadist rabble-rousers were all dead, fled, or in the stockade. Later on, the occupied populations would be living under U.S. law, and would enjoy the same rights (freedom of speech, religion, etc.) and restrictions (anti-sedition laws, etc.) as we do now. By then, the Islamic nature of the culture in question would have been superseded by a culture of western character; Islam would become just one more denomination among others in an increasingly Christianized culture. Call it the "Charles Martel Doctrine."

Not that I expect any of this to happen, of course. Western Man has lost his guts, and we'll pay the price later for not doing what we should now. "And conquer we must, when our cause it is just; and this be our motto: 'In God is Our Trust'" -- Francis Scott Key, "The Star-Spangled Banner".

[JMJ333]

I did not see anything about Forced Conversion to anything.

When you figure out how to convert the people in post 66 without force, let me know.

[B-Chan]

Convert them using the patented Saul of Tarsus® Method. It worked on the pagan Roman Empire.

[Endeavor]

And not every one of Picasso's works shows the same brilliance, but he is a highly acclaimed artist and the popularity of his work reflects this. For those who are engrossed in dissecting sentences, "This Is War" may keep you mind-numbling happy. How sad that you miss the brilliance of the art and the artist.

Coulter has the guts to say exactly what she believes. She wrote that article out of great anger and great pain. She had the guts to write and publish what many of us (or at least I HOPE what many of us) were thinking. Ann is black-and-white in a grey world. I'll take that over any spineless jerk who gladhands you while he/she's stabbing you in the back.

Ann's welcome in my foxhole anytime - and that's no sexist remark - I'm female, and I'm straight.

Endeavor

[rb22982]

I don't know why you're so upset. All I'm saying is that we do unto the Jihad Nations today as we did to the Japanese and Germans after we won World War II. That worked out pretty well, didn't it?

I'm not upset, I find it humorous. We aren't engaged against super powers, this isn't the 40s and 50s, and half of the things you do are violation of rights, namely being the draft (to life) but that's another whole thread.

And, by the way, monarchy is returning -- to Afghanistan, among other nations.

A monarchy is just slightly better than a dictatorship, but it will never return to America. Thank God! Even God forever warned the Israelites against getting a king and it caused them many a problems when they did.

[ConsistentLibertarian]

OK, so suppose we invade, kill their leaders, occupy their countries AND permit the continued practice of Islam -- just as you suggest. This is going to lead to mass conversion from Islam to Christianity ... how? You seem to think by _fiat_: "Islam would become just one more denomination among others in an increasingly Christianized culture." That's just hand waving. It's a restatement of the outcome you desire. It's not an explanation how it could be accomplished.

[JMJ333]

I see...do we have enough missionaries for this task? How many countries harbor islamic militants [Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, the palestinians...] For that matter, do we have a big enough army to go in and kill all these leaders? That'll kind of stretch us thin, won't it?

[RochesterFan]

Just a couple of points:

1. We live in a society that guarantees free speech. Ann states her ideas quite eloquently. Others are free to criticize the ideas. That freedom is not permitted under a Fundamentalist Islamic nation. The people oppressed by these regimes would have more freedom under a democratic form of government.
2. Nobody on Free Republic can convert anybody to Christianity. Many can and do preach the Gospel (literally "good news") of Jesus Christ. It is good news to those oppressed by Islam and offers eternal life. However, conversion only occurs by an act of the Holy Spirit. At least under a democratic form of government the people are free to investigate and debate the claims of all religions.

[bd56]

Jonah Goldburg's explanation of Ann Coulter leaving NRO