So, opinions are okay, even if they are defaming?
Well, here is my opinion about Ann Coulter.
First of all, I suspect, she calls herself conservative, Republican, and probably "Christian" in the Reformed sense, proud, arrogant, prejudiced, unkind, unforgiving, "assured," and what not.
I believe she is a perfect extreme example of such a "Christian," where all the characteristics of one are laid bare for everyone to see. No doubt, in my mind, she doesn't hold back because all her sins that she will commit have already been forgiven in her mind. She is the extreme example of the pecca fortiter (sin boldly) abomination of Luther's message.
I believe that she is the epitome of the Reformed perversion of Christianity in that there is absolutely nothing, no reason whatsoever, for Reformed Christians to not act carnally, sin as much as possible, lie, cheat, defame, steal, even kill, because in their mind all their sins have been forgiven.
And when they add to this God's purpose, convinced that they are not guided by their own will, but by God, then we have what I call a Christian Muslim: a fundamentalist mind with jihadist tendencies using a different God, but the same principle, imo.
All this has been pointed out on FR by Kolo, Mark, StF, myself and other Catholics and Orthodox on these forums. WE all believe to various degrees perhaps that the Reformed theology may not promote that which is carnal, but iyt intrinsically lacks any checks and balances that will make any individual stop and say "am I supposed to be doing this?" In other words, it does not seem to promote repentance (if one's sins have already been forgiven) because it is not needed and "makes no sense." I am firmly convinced that it is an inherently man-made, tailor-made for man inclinations, self-serving religion based on self-rigtheousness.
Her falsehood, in my opinion, is not intended to convince anyone, because it's glaringly false, but it is intended, I think, to smear and defame. I am no lawyer, but even I know that defamation is not just a "joke."
I happen to be on the FR Ann Coulter ping list and have been reading her columns every week for several months now
Fine company you choose, imo.
It is unethical to tell a knowing lie for the purpose of convincing others of the truth of it
A lie is a lie. It is always there for one purpose: to deceive, to hurt.
It is completely different, for the reasons above and also that the businesses are in direct violation of the law
And defamation isn't? Not all speech is protected. Not all opinions are allowed.
If Annie was breaking the law, you don't think there are a million prosecutors out there who would stand in line to get her?
Annie? I see her more like a seven-headed Beast, but that's juts my perception. With millions of illegals in the country, you'd think a lawyer of her character would have prosecuted some businesses for their unethical practices. Lawyers have jobs. They don't go around crusading.
Instead of meeting justice, which is what she went to law school for (I hope), she is much happier "stirring up the pot" as she says, and being in the limelight as one of the favorite conservative attack dogs (no gander insinuated here/s). Prosecuting business for hiring illegal aliens is real work. Who wants that?
I certainly haven't read all of her work, but I do see a pattern from what I have read that is perfectly fine ethically and truthfully.
Bu we already know that our concepts of truth and ethics are like night and day, FK. So, it doesn't surprise me one bit that you would consider "Annie" Coulter truthful and ethical.
But the RINOs detest her.. About stirring the pot..?
Thats what her name MEANS..
Coul·ter:a cutting tool (as a knife or sharp disc) that is attached to the beam of a plow, makes a vertical cut in the surface, and permits clean separation and effective covering of the soil and materials being turned unde
So, opinions are okay, even if they are defaming?
Oh PLEASE! :) Defaming? Did ANYONE take the comment as an assertion of fact? NO! No one did. Therefore, it was not defaming. An example of defaming was when Clinton New Hampshire campaign co-chair Bill Shaheen (husband of former governor), suggested to the press that Obama might have been a drug dealer based on no evidence whatsoever. Now, multiply that by a thousand times, and suddenly you're a student of American politics. :)
First of all, I suspect, [Ann] calls herself conservative, Republican, and probably "Christian" in the Reformed sense, proud, arrogant, prejudiced, unkind, unforgiving, "assured," and what not.
You forgot racist, sexist, homophobic, unpatriotic, and she hates puppies.
I believe she is a perfect extreme example of such a "Christian," where all the characteristics of one are laid bare for everyone to see. No doubt, in my mind, she doesn't hold back because all her sins that she will commit have already been forgiven in her mind. She is the extreme example of the pecca fortiter (sin boldly) abomination of Luther's message.
Some people say that Christianity means in part that we should never put anyone in jail according to the scriptures. I find your above to be a perfect example of what the following verse was really designed to cover:
Matt 7:1-2 : 7:1 "Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
I think this speaks to judging another's motivations and what is in his or her heart. As I understand it, Ann does happen to be a Reformer, and if so, of course she would have nothing to do with your interpretation of Luther. No Reformer, or Bible-believing Christian, would.
I believe that she is the epitome of the Reformed perversion of Christianity in that there is absolutely nothing, no reason whatsoever, for Reformed Christians to not act carnally, sin as much as possible, lie, cheat, defame, steal, even kill, because in their mind all their sins have been forgiven.
And you think Ann Coulter epitomizes this? If she was promoting a book on C-SPAN and you called in with this, I would pay money to hear her response! :) Please show me a pattern of examples. I haven't seen ONE yet.
And when they add to this God's purpose, convinced that they are not guided by their own will, but by God, then we have what I call a Christian Muslim: a fundamentalist mind with jihadist tendencies using a different God, but the same principle, imo.
AG, what were those verses again? LOL!
All this has been pointed out on FR by Kolo, Mark, StF, myself and other Catholics and Orthodox on these forums. WE all believe to various degrees perhaps that the Reformed theology may not promote that which is carnal, but it intrinsically lacks any checks and balances that will make any individual stop and say "am I supposed to be doing this?" (emphasis added)
Kosta, I KNOW you know better, and I will stop there and not get into your motivations. To all lurkers, the above is a 100% mischaracterization of Reformed theology. The checks and balances that prevent us from chasing wine, women, and song after our assuredness of His grace are legion in the Bible itself. We quote them ALL THE TIME. Apparently, we are not being allowed to believe in the very theology we preach to everyone. The ENTIRE chapter of Romans 6 covers this. Here it is:
Rom 6 : 1 What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? 2 By no means ! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? 3 Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life. 5 If we have been united with him like this in his death, we will certainly also be united with him in his resurrection. 6 For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin— 7 because anyone who has died has been freed from sin.
8 Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. 9 For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him. 10 The death he died, he died to sin once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God.
11 In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus. 12 Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires. 13 Do not offer the parts of your body to sin, as instruments of wickedness, but rather offer yourselves to God, as those who have been brought from death to life; and offer the parts of your body to him as instruments of righteousness. 14 For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace. 15 What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means ! 16 Don't you know that when you offer yourselves to someone to obey him as slaves, you are slaves to the one whom you obey — whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness? 17 But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you wholeheartedly obeyed the form of teaching to which you were entrusted. 18 You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness.
19 I put this in human terms because you are weak in your natural selves. Just as you used to offer the parts of your body in slavery to impurity and to ever-increasing wickedness, so now offer them in slavery to righteousness leading to holiness. 20 When you were slaves to sin, you were free from the control of righteousness. 21 What benefit did you reap at that time from the things you are now ashamed of? Those things result in death! 22 But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves to God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life. 23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Will you allow us to believe this? :) I mean, we say we believe it all the time, yet the other side keeps denying that we even believe in what we say we believe in. I would expect your side to simply declare Paul wrong, but please at least allow us to agree with his grievous error. :)
In other words, it does not seem to promote repentance (if one's sins have already been forgiven) because it is not needed and "makes no sense."
After salvation, we do not repent to earn salvation back. We repent to be forgiven (non-salvational), obey, grow, and be sanctified. These are all worthy things in the life of a Christian.
[Ann Coulter's] falsehood [about Edwards being gay], in my opinion, is not intended to convince anyone, because it's glaringly false, but it is intended, I think, to smear and defame. I am no lawyer, but even I know that defamation is not just a "joke."
It was a joke that missed. :) I saw the tape. There was nothing more to it than that. She was feeding red meat to a red meat crowd. It only happens every single day in politics.
BTW, since Edwards is a public figure the standards go WAY up to prove a case like defamation ("actual malice" legally not present here). Given the facts, it was a non-event, except for the media which tried to blow it up. Which, of course, only resulted in more cable spots for her and consequently more book sales. I remember laughing WITH her AT the media and the liberals who made a big deal out of it. It just helped her. :)
A lie is a lie. It is always there for one purpose: to deceive, to hurt.
So if a female friend or family memeber asks you if she looks fat in a dress you just lay it on 'em straight down the line? Riiiiiiiiight. :)
FK: "It is completely different, for the reasons above and also that the businesses are in direct violation of the law."
And defamation isn't? Not all speech is protected. Not all opinions are allowed.
Federal law prohibits businesses from knowingly hiring illegals. If they do it anyway, then there isn't much else to say. They are in violation of law and should be prosecuted. Unfortunately, all the current law does is impose a small fine for such an offense, like a big speeding ticket.
Defamation, OTOH, is a civil tort and must/should meet the basic element before a suit can be brought. One of those elements is actual damages, in which Edwards would have no case to make.
BTW, from your above, and barring national security, a prior contract, or McCain legislation or something, which opinions are not allowed in this country?
Annie? I see her more like a seven-headed Beast, but that's just my perception. With millions of illegals in the country, you'd think a lawyer of her character would have prosecuted some businesses for their unethical practices. Lawyers have jobs. They don't go around crusading.
While pursuing a career in federal or state prosecution is very noble, and serves the public good, I'm sure that the other FR lawyers around here would agree that no lawyer is "honor-bound" to pursue such a career. In fact, the great majority do not. In further fact, I cannot name any FR lawyer that I know of who has done so. No shame on them, ........... or me. :)
And BTW (again :) my gut instinct tells me that if someone did a survey the result would be that most "professional crusaders" have a law degree. :)
Instead of meeting justice, which is what she went to law school for (I hope), she is much happier "stirring up the pot" as she says, and being in the limelight as one of the favorite conservative attack dogs (no gander insinuated here/s).
No goose taken. :) But seriously, you just can't impose a duty upon any lawyer to practice the type of law you feel is most worthy. The law is an extremely broad profession, and there is genuine and legitimate need for expertise in a great many fields. So, to make a short story long, I don't think it's fair to criticize Ann for using her law degree to choose the career path she did, based on some duty or debt you think she owes.
But we already know that our concepts of truth and ethics are like night and day, FK. So, it doesn't surprise me one bit that you would consider "Annie" Coulter truthful and ethical.
What is this? :) SO far, all I know is that you don't like her. That's fine, but give me something to defend. You have done a pretty good job to "defame" her in your post. Can you back it up with anything? :)