Coulter’s Anti-Semitism is Evangelical Orthodoxy
Posted by
KTK
The right-wing freakshow that is Ann Coulter is back in the news today for offensive remarks about . . . oh, lots of things, including Jews. What no one seems to have noticed is that, this time, Coulter didn’t make up her latest outrage - she was just saying in public what right-wing evangelicals have been saying among themselves, quite explicitly, for decades.
On the CNBC talkshow “The Big Idea”, last Monday, she was asked “what this country would look like” if her “dream” came true. Her answer:
It would look like New York City during the Republican National Convention. In fact, that’s what I think heaven is going to look like. . . .
People were happy. They’re Christian. They’re tolerant. They defend America . . . .
Apparently heaven is comprised of happy, joyful, lily-white Republicans crammed nervously into a single building surrounded by cops, while George Bush screeches about gays and stem cells and the citizens are herded into holding pens and arrested without grounds. I can see why she’d like that, but her Jewish interviewer seemed to think it was odd that she specified they’d all have to be Christian as well. (He didn’t challenge any other part of her statement.)
Coulter went on to helpfully explain that, in her “dream” world, there would be no Jews, because they’d all have been converted to Christianity, and that in fact Christianity itself really is Judaism, just “perfected”.
DEUTSCH: Christian — so we should be Christian? It would be better if we were all Christian?
COULTER: Yes.
DEUTSCH: We should all be Christian?
COULTER: Yes. Would you like to come to church with me, Donny? . . .
DEUTSCH: [Y]ou said I should not — we should just throw Judaism away and we should all be Christians, then, or –
COULTER: Yeah.
DEUTSCH: Really?
COULTER: Well, it’s a lot easier. It’s kind of a fast track.
DEUTSCH: Really?
COULTER: Yeah. You have to obey. . . .
COULTER: No, we think — we just want Jews to be perfected, as they say.
DEUTSCH: Wow, you didn’t really say that, did you?
COULTER: Yes. That is what Christianity is. We believe the Old Testament, but ours is more like Federal Express. You have to obey laws. We know we’re all sinners –
DEUTSCH: In my old days, I would have argued — when you say something absurd like that, there’s no –
COULTER: What’s absurd?
DEUTSCH: Jews are going to be perfected. I’m going to go off and try to perfect myself –
COULTER: Well, that’s what the New Testament says.
DEUTSCH: Ann Coulter, author of If Democrats Had Any Brains, They’d Be Republicans, and if Ann Coulter had any brains, she would not say Jews need to be perfected. I’m offended by that personally. And we’ll have more Big Idea when we come back.
[BREAK]
DEUTSCH: Welcome back to The Big Idea. During the break, Ann said she wanted to explain her last comment. So I’m going to give her a chance. So you don’t think that was offensive?
COULTER: No. I’m sorry. It is not intended to be. I don’t think you should take it that way, but that is what Christians consider themselves: perfected Jews. We believe the Old Testament. As you know from the Old Testament, God was constantly getting fed up with humans for not being able to, you know, live up to all the laws. What Christians believe — this is just a statement of what the New Testament is — is that that’s why Christ came and died for our sins. Christians believe the Old Testament. You don’t believe our testament.
DEUTSCH: You said — your exact words were, “Jews need to be perfected.” Those are the words out of your mouth.
COULTER: No, I’m saying that’s what a Christian is.
DEUTSCH: But that’s what you said — don’t you see how hateful, how anti-Semitic –
COULTER: No!
DEUTSCH: How do you not see? You’re an educated woman. How do you not see that?
COULTER: That isn’t hateful at all.
DEUTSCH: But that’s even a scarier thought. OK –
COULTER: No, no, no, no, no. I don’t want you being offended by this. This is what Christians consider themselves, because our testament is the continuation of your testament. You know that. So we think Jews go to heaven. I mean, [Rev. Jerry] Falwell himself said that, but you have to follow laws. Ours is “Christ died for our sins.” We consider ourselves perfected Christians. For me to say that for you to become a Christian is to become a perfected [Jew] is not offensive at all.
So, OK . . . weird, stupid, arrogant, offensive, and incomprehensible (”Federal Express”?). You expected anything else?
It’s been getting a lot of commentary on liberal blogs; the right wing, of course, found nothing to remark on. But the tone of the comments I’ve read is that this is shocking, out of line, and another example of Coulter’s deliberately offensive insanity.
In fact, in this case Coulter’s just stating a position that is perfectly mainstream on the religious right. Seeing Jesus as the Jewish Messiah, evangelical Christians often claim that Christianity is the follow-on to Judaism that Jews have in fact been waiting for for over 6,000 years, and the Jews just don’t realize it. (This is the rationale behind both “Jews for Jesus” - Jewish converts to Christianity, one of whose ad slogans is “Be more Jewish - believe in Jesus”, and the “Messianic Jew” movement, made up of right-wing Christians who expropriate Jewish dress and symbolism, including the use of Torah scrolls and other sacred objects, for use in Christian rituals.) Jews who realize the truth about Jesus as the Messiah will become “perfected” by becoming Christians. During the Apocalypse of the Armageddon of the Final Days of the Last Judgment™, those Jews who haven’t “perfected” themselves will, depending on which evangelical peyote-trip you’re on, either be killed violently and condemned to eternal torment, or just converted to Christianity against their will.
This is all standard stuff - and, as has been widely remarked, the source of evangelical support for Israel, which they defend partly because they believe God commands it, but also because doing so, in their minds, fulfills some sort of prophecy that will hasten the Apocalypse and the final destruction of Judaism and all other non-Christian religions. Again, this is standard among “millenialist” (apocalyptic) evangelicals, who - contrary to popular belief - are only a minority of Christians, but a large one.
Critics also seemed to believe that Coulter’s claim about “perfected Jews” was some sort of implication that real Jews were imperfect. It is, of course, but it’s not a claim she invented. “Perfected Judaism” is a term of art among evangelicals; Coulter was saying nothing new in using it.
The bottom line is that Coulter’s condescending and offensive remarks about Judaism - which she blandly states are “not offensive”, as if the fact that she is comfortable with her own anti-Semitism means it’s OK - are in this case not a product of her own diseased and vicious mind, but are merely ordinary mainstream right-wing Christian theology. The real story is not that Ann Coulter is nasty and crazy - that’s old news. The story is that the religion practiced by George W. Bush and his entire right-wing “base” is just as nasty and crazy as Ann Coulter - which in turn is the reason the right wing is not trying to distance itself from Coulter this time. They can’t. They are her.
UPDATE: Some of the right-wing blogs now are getting into the game, but with predictably self-righteous obliviousness.
Debbie Schlussel not only endorses Coulter’s assessment of Schussel’s own religion, but goes one further to assert that Jews feel just the same about everyone else, too:
[I]t’s abundantly clear what she was talking about. To wit: That we, as Jews, don’t accept the full Christian Bible, and therefore, it’s the Christian belief that we need to be fully accepting of that.
. . . To you far-left Jews and other uber-liberals who want to rush off and call Ann an anti-Semite, that means that we as Jews believe Christians and Hindus (and definitely, Muslims) are not Chosen. Does that make me a religious bigot? Nope. It just means I actually believe in my religion.
It’s not only not bad to say the things Coulter says, it’s good to say them about even more people! If you actually believe in your religion then of course its teachings can’t be bigoted. (With typical tact, she then goes on to assert that Deutsch, of CNBC, was “lying” in claiming to be a “true” Jew himself, and that liberalism is the “real religion” of “Jewish libs”. Ohhhkayyyy . . .)
Charles Johnson, at his “Little Green Footballs” vomitorium (no link, thanks), observes, correctly, that: “From my reading, Coulter was simply stating standard Christian doctrine . . . .” - but he says almost nothing more than this. For him, that in itself is proof that Coulter is being unfairly criticized.
Omri Ceren, at “Mere Rhetoric”, regards the reactions to Coulter as the real story:
Liberals take their own fashionable, spineless disattachment from the world - “believing too much in something is so unsophisticated.” They follow it to its logical conclusion of vapid multiculturalism, where asserting passionate belief is an attack on some incredibly fragile Other - “believing too much in something is intolerant.” And then when they have to deal with a normal, healthy person of faith, their self-righteous myopia triggers everything from shocked offense to a mindboggling inability to even understand what’s at stake. . . .
[Coulter has] got a genuine point. And that’s the intuitive observation that, rather than being in tension with one another, genuine religious tolerance actually requires strong belief. This is certainly where some of the best Jewish theologians have been ending up. It also has the benefit of making sense - if someone’s confident in their beliefs, they don’t take it as an attack when someone else is also confident in their own beliefs. Disagreement is not tantamount to aggression and insult. . . .
Coulter is stating that part of being a Christian is believing that Christianity is true, which has the fortunate side effect of also implying that Jews are saved for believing that Judaism is true. What a bigot!
So, for him, “we should just throw Judaism away and we should all be Christians, then, or – . . . Yeah”, and “we just want Jews to be perfected, as they say . . . That is what Christianity is” is merely “asserting passionate belief” on the part of a “normal, healthy person of faith” who just happens to want another entire religion to disappear in favor of her own. Not only is ”disagreement” not “tantamount to aggression and insult”, but neither is saying an entire religious group should be “perfected” by conversion and cease to exist!
“The Anchoress” is distressed that Coulter has set the right-wing cause back by treading clumsily, but, apparently, for no other reason:
This is going to be the caricature of Christians and conservatives for the next 18 months, (and beyond) and it’s going to stick because people want it to stick and because it’s EASIER to let it stick than to find out what this woman - who is really out of her depths here - was trying to say. . . .
If you don’t like the way Christians are stereotyped these days, well, thank Mrs. Coulter for just making things that much more difficult! . . .
[T]his seems like a pretty dumb, clumsy and inarticulate interview and more importantly, it is a pointless exercise that makes Coulter (and Christians) sound like judgmental automatons who want to walk over you or convert you. This is going to be added to the ever-growing moral equivalence narrative that says “Christians are just like Islamic Fundamentalists!”
The Anchoress doesn’t point out, but does seem to realize, that the things Coulter says that make Christians seem like judgmental automatons who want to walk over or convert you are the things Christians actually believe, expressed in the language Christians actually use.
And that really sums up the right-wing reaction. It is acknowledged that this offensiveness is mainstream Christian dogma - traceable back to the Bible itself (whence the term “perfected”, in this context, originally appears) but largely the meat and potatoes of the evangelical right today. (The Catholic church formally renounced conversion of the Jews under John Paul II, though the current Pope is flirting with it again.) But it is taken for granted by these commentators that pointing out the mainstream acceptance of these beliefs absolves Coulter of offense in stating them. Not one defender questions whether that belief - that there is not only a distinction between Jewish and Christian beliefs, but that Jews ought to or have to abandon their version - is one decent Christians ought to hold; all assume that because this dismissive and offensive position regarding Judaism is one many Christians hold, it is OK to hold it.
But the problem is not, as The Anchoress seems to think, that Coulter didn’t express herself with sufficient gravitas. Though she is, as usual, gleefully indulgent in her offensiveness, the real issue is what she said, not how she said it. (This is often the issue for Coulter, and it often goes overlooked. She is deliberately provocative and also a horrible person, but the former often gets the attention at the expense of the latter. And since she is simply devoid of any concern for other people’s feelings, or normal standards of decency, she is more than happy to let people remark on her offensive manner, while they let her substantive content go unchallenged.) The ideas she espouses are no more congenial for being common, mainstream, or integral with Christianity. And the fact that so many less-crazy Christians hold those ideas is the real story - not that Coulter stripped the veneer of respectability off of them.
The blogger at “Isreallycool” seems to get it, sort of:
Coulter degraded my religion, and this is offensive to me. Does it offend me that most Christians believe what she said? No, because they don’t rub my face in it, like Coulter did.
I am not offended by Coulter because of her Christian beliefs. I am offended because she showed a complete disregard for the feelings of others, those others beings practioners of other religions.
(As he notes, the issue is that her beliefs are offensive - not merely that she stated them offensively. But I can’t help wondering why you wouldn’t be offended by knowing that most religious believers hold offensive opinions about you, as long as they don’t say it out loud. Possibly his point is that Coulter gave offense by openly insulting people, whereas unstated bigoted beliefs are offensive but do not cause distress by direct imposition. But that makes the holders only marginally better people.)
I used to think Coulter was suffering from a form of philosphical anorexia, as if her own words were causing her to vomit away what nourishment she managed to take in; but it’s obviously just a case of dysentery of the mouth.
Have fun dealing with the ADL, Anne.
Comment 10/11/2007
Yeah, I’m actually surprised at the outrage Coulter has generated on this. This has been standard fundamentalist thought for a long long time. check out Jack Chick who is always good for insight on that style of thought:
http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/1000/1000_01.asp
Comment 10/11/2007
Why does it bother you that someone is “anti-Semitic.” Aren’t you anti-all religions?
Comment 10/11/2007
[…] Lean Left opines that comments Ann Coulter made recently that Christians are “perfected Jews” are representative of a widespread evangelical view. Critics also seemed to believe that Coulter’s claim about “perfected Jews” was some sort of implication that real Jews were imperfect. It is, of course, but it’s not a claim she invented. “Perfected Judaism” is a term of art among evangelicals; Coulter was saying nothing new in using it. […]
Pingback 10/11/2007
Why does it bother you that someone is “anti-Semitic.” Aren’t you anti-all religions?
I think all religions are false in their factual teachings, and groundless in their claims to wisdom or moral authority. I suppose I’m “anti” religion in the sense that I think it’s a mistake to join one. But I also think people should have a right to hold religious beliefs or to engage in religious practices that don’t harm others or intrude upon their similar freedom. (People should have the autonomy to do whatever they wish with their lives, both as to conscience and behavior, consonant with some general compromise for the sake of equality and order.)
Anti-Semitism has nothing to do with the truth, or the advisability, of any form of belief or behavior. It is bigotry, not disagreement. It can take many forms, the most common being simple hatred of Jews as Jews, but also that of oppression of Jewish religious practices, or the abuse or denigration of Jews, Jewish culture, or Jewish beliefs, history, or lifestyles, or in general the treatment of Jewish people in oppressive or debilitating ways justified only by animosity. (Note for the record: opposition to Israel, as a geopolitical entity, or to its policies or practices, is none of these.) Bigotry, and its practice, oppression, should be opposed because they are destructive of the central values of persons’ lives; they ruin what others hold most dear, without justification or defensible purpose.
Religion is a great source of bigotry, whatever else it may be. It is understood that members of different religions have differing beliefs; that is disagreement. Disagreement does not necessitate that one’s beliefs include the invalidity of another’s religion in its entirety, or a belief in its inferiority, the necessary (or forcible) conversion of its members away from their own beliefs, or that they will or should suffer in some way for failing to convert. That is bigotry (and when put into practice as policy, as in the Inquisition, or in state-sponsored religious practices, it is oppression).
Contrary to most Christians’ beliefs, most religions do not engage in proselytizing, and few actively seek the downfall of opposing religious traditions (those few include the most powerful religions extant today, however - possibly for an obvious reason). Proselytizing religions have great difficulty avoiding bigotry, but that is not a defense of their beliefs or behavior.
Comment 10/11/2007
My conservative friends always want to know why 87% of us Jews vote Democratic, even though the GOP is “stronger” on Israel (for whatever the hell that means, I guess they’re stronger on not wanting to find a real solution). Well, here’s your answer!
Comment 10/11/2007
I wonder, have you ever studied Hebrews? In that book, the concept of “perfection” comes up about a dozen times; reading it might lend some perspective.
Comment 10/11/2007
“… in that book.”
Which one, the Torah? The Talmud? Maybe the Tanakh as a whole? None of which has any reference to Jews being “perfected” as Christians. So, do tell; just which scroll do I need to ask my Rabbi for.
Comment 10/12/2007
“But I also think people should have a right to hold religious beliefs”
Unless you think Christianity is right.
Comment 10/12/2007
[…] Argh, yeah, what KTK says over at Lean Left. […]
Pingback 10/12/2007
“DEUTSCH: Christian — so we should be Christian? It would be better if we were all Christian?
COULTER: Yes.”
What’s wrong with that? That’s been the position of Christians from the beginning. The Aposltle Paul believed it. He spent his life trying to convert everyone he came across to become a Christian.
Don’t the liberals in here think it would be better for the world if everyone was an enlightened liberal?
Comment 10/12/2007
What’s wrong with that? That’s been the position of Christians from the beginning.
As I keep saying, the fact that lots of Christians believe it isn’t proof that it’s not offensive.
The problem with saying that we should all be Christians is that it entails - as Coulter explicitly said, repeatedly - that none of us should be Jews. And she didn’t just say that, but she insisted on putting in in terms that also entail (even if their technical meaning is slightly different) that Judaism, and Jews, are somehow “imperfect”. And further, as Coulter didn’t say but is part and parcel of what she did say, this whole business arises from a perspective that essentially holds Judaism to be invalid, and is largely promulgated by people who also believe that the final triumph of their religion will require all Jews to be forcibly converted to Christianity or condemned to Hell.
So, whether or not this has “been the position of Christians from the beginning”, you simply can’t say or believe these things without being a complete asshole and an anti-Semite. Coulter enthusiastically embraced both.
Christians, essentially, have a choice to make: they can view their religion as one among various valid paths to enlightenment and a righteous life, and accept and appreciate that others have other valid beliefs to the same effect - which would require giving up their claim that only Christians can be righteous - or they can insist that only those who have “accepted Jesus” can be righteous, which simultaneously requires adopting a dismissive stance toward other religions and regarding their practitioners as both misguided and morally/spiritually inferior. Many Christians will claim that their religion does not allow a permissive stance toward other beliefs, and does in fact define them as false and inferior; they may be right in this. But that doesn’t change the fact that thinking so makes you an asshole. For centuries, most Christians were perfectly happy to be assholes for their religion, and many of them were eager to be murderers, torturers, and tyrants besides. In the very recent past, many Christians have adopted a “many paths” stance in which they downplay the bit about “none may come to the Father except through me” and emphasize the bits about the meek and the poor. But with the ascendancy of the religious right in the US, the asshole wing of Christianity has reasserted itself - most recently, but in no way uniquely, through Ann Coulter. And so each Christian is once again faced with the choice many of them had been trying to finesse: do you want to be a Christian asshole, or do you want to be a decent, tolerant, accepting and sympathetic human being?
Comment 10/12/2007
“DEUTSCH: Christian — so we should be Christian? It would be better if we were all Christian?
[Torquemada]: Yes.”
Comment 10/12/2007
[…] Read also why “Ann Coulter Thinks That Jews Need to be Perfected by Becoming Christians” and how “Coulter’s Anti-Semitism is Evangelical Orthodoxy.” […]
Pingback 10/12/2007
“that Judaism, and Jews, are somehow “imperfect”. And further, as Coulter didn’t say but is part and parcel of what she did say, this whole business arises from a perspective that essentially holds Judaism to be invalid, and is largely promulgated by people who also believe that the final triumph of their religion will require all Jews to be forcibly converted to Christianity or condemned to Hell.”
Part of what you say is true. However, the part about the “final triumph of their religion” depending on “forcibly” converting Jews is not true. We believe Christ will triumph without the help of any converts, Jews or otherwise. Also, no one can be forcibly converted into placing his faith in Christ.
“So, whether or not this has “been the position of Christians from the beginning”, you simply can’t say or believe these things without being a complete asshole and an anti-Semite. Coulter enthusiastically embraced both.”
Aside from completely mistating Coulter’s comments, your words identify you as being an anti-Christian. Why is that not as bad as being an anti-Semite?
“Christians, essentially, have a choice to make: they can view their religion as one among various valid paths to enlightenment and a righteous life, and accept and appreciate that others have other valid beliefs to the same effect - which would require giving up their claim that only Christians can be righteous - or they can insist that only those who have “accepted Jesus” can be righteous, which simultaneously requires adopting a dismissive stance toward other religions and regarding their practitioners as both misguided and morally/spiritually inferior.”
I’ll take the words of Jesus as truth on this matter.
In the very recent past, many Christians have adopted a “many paths” stance in which they downplay the bit about “none may come to the Father except through me”and emphasize the bits about the meek and the poor.”
You don’t have to make a choice between believing the words of Christ and being meek and help the poor. How can people reject the words of Jesus Christ and still consider themselves Christians? That’s like a moslem rejecting the words of Mohammed and still climing to be a good moslem.
” do you want to be a decent, tolerant, accepting and sympathetic human being? ”
Like you? LOL
Comment 10/12/2007
Lest we forget here are some quotes from our good Christian neighboor Ann Coulter…
“We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren’t punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That’s war. And this is war.” - WWJD? He’d bomb people, that’s what.
“My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building.” - Just another right-wing terrorist bombing the wrong place; what else is new?
“I know Jesus Christ died for my sins, and that’s all I really need to know.” - That’s all, huh? Reading comprehension is for squares.
Aparantly, Ann reads from the “Fuck Everybody” version of the scriptures.
Comment 10/12/2007
“Ann reads from the “Fuck Everybody” version of the scriptures.”
And you think Ann Coulter is bad!? LOL
Comment 10/12/2007
Absolutly.
Got a point?
Comment 10/12/2007
Also, no one can be forcibly converted into placing his faith in Christ.
Tell that to the victims of the Inquisition…
I’ll take the words of Jesus as truth on this matter.
Not a bad plan. Unfortunately, too many Christians place far more emphasis on the words of Paul…
How can people reject the words of Jesus Christ and still consider themselves Christians?
So you oppose capital punishment, then? (John 8, in case you’re forgetting…)
Comment 10/12/2007
While we’re on the subject of the words of Jesus, I’m sure Morris also rebukes all forms of public prayer, based on Jesus teachings in Matthew 6.
And I’m sure he’s gone out of his way to hate his mother and father, too.
And divested himself of all of his wealth, given the whole easier-for-a-camel-to-get-through-the-eye-of-a-needle bit, and the admonition to sell all you own to help the poor and spread the word.
Or can we safely ignore those teachings, what with them being politically inconvenient for conservatives, and all?
Comment 10/12/2007
[…] KTK has already said most of what needs to be said about this, but I think there are a couple of additional things that are worth pointing out: […]
Pingback 10/12/2007
Morris: “Also, no one can be forcibly converted into placing his faith in Christ.”
tg: “Tell that to the victims of the Inquisition…”
Obviously you are smart enough to realize that forcing someone to make an outward show of accepting a belief does not mean that the person has actually accepted that belief in his mind. Could anyone force you to convert to anything you didn’t believe in?
BTW, don’t expect me to defend Roman Catholicism. It was the worst thing that every happened to Christianity.
Comment 10/13/2007
This whole thread is a joke. I don’t know of a site that spends more time making offensive remarks about religion and then they get offended because someone supposedly says something “offensive” about a religion. You’re not fooling anyone with this pretentious foolishness. It is especially funny to read KTK, of all people, pretending to be offended.
Comment 10/13/2007
Anne has a right to her religion. And it’s probably GOOD that she said what she believes. Why is everyone so shocked? We all know that staunch Christians often believe that only THEIR sect belongs in heaven….or stands a chance of going there! This is not news. The issue is whether or not as many Americans agree with her as buy her books/listen to her on TV/follow her on radio. I for one, turn her off and refuse to watch any network who airs her brand of ‘tripe.’ She can believe what she wants, but she has NO right in THIS country to try to foist HER beliefs off onto ME or anyone else! That is where what she said crosses a line. In THIS country one religion is not valued over another…at least not officially! SHE would have us all believe as SHE believes! SHE would take away our freedom to believe and practice as we choose! THAT is where the fault lies.
Comment 10/13/2007
Wow! Talk about self hating Jews.
Comment 10/14/2007
what in the world is the big deal?what in the world is new here?why are mormons and jehovas witnesses among others at our door?
muslims believe THEY only go to paradise,christians think its theirs alone who knows what hindus and others think and really who cares?
why should anyone be offended by such utter arrogance is beyond me.
Comment 10/14/2007
KTK,
I can understand why you and others despise Ann Coulter and why you might accuse her of hypocrisy. She appears to understand Christian doctrine, though she often appears to live in conflict with it. I had an inkling (I haven’t read all of her books) that she was a professing (Evangelical) Christian, but hardly looked to her as an example or role model for Christians. As a result, I am saddened that she is giving fodder to those who–for whatever reason, oppose Christianity.
That being said, you have a curious concept of “belief” and “truth.” Does my belief or unbelief in something affect its “truth”?
Do you think it impossible (not to mention offensive and wrong) to conclude that a certain idea or concept is “right” and all other competing ideas are “wrong”? More importantly, do you think it is impossible to believe another person’s beliefs are wrong without hating, despising, wanting to forcibly convert or cause suffering to that person?
You may think there is no such thing as absolute truth and that a person cannot be respectful/civil toward others without being intellectually tolerant, but I have reached a different conclusion . . . not because it is convenient or beneficial or popular . . . because I think it is right. Am I free to hold those beliefs?
Comment 10/14/2007
Morris,
First of all, there’s a big difference between KTK intellectually rejecting the idea of religion as an institution and being anti-Christian. Disbelief in religion, or any specific denomination thereof does not imply contempt or a privileging of the rights of those who share your view. Your contention seems to be that the following two statements imply the same thing.
“Baseball doesn’t really interest me much.”
“Fuck the Yankees!”
Either way, I don’t really care about what Coulter said. I certainly feel that it is more important for public figures to be honest than to be politically correct. That’s how she feels - good for her. Everybody should know her true colors. Why are we complaining about a bigot outing herself as a bigot? It’s better than couching her true beliefs in disingenuous rhetoric.
Comment 10/15/2007
“Disbelief in religion, or any specific denomination thereof does not imply contempt or a privileging of the rights of those who share your view.”
Then what’s your problem with someone disbelieving what another religion teaches? You are accusing Coulter(and other Christians)of contempt for another religion because they beleive their own religion. Make up your mind. Is it or is it not contempt for another religion not to believe the tenets of another religion?
“Your contention seems to be that the following two statements imply the same thing.”
Then you need to get your assumer fixed. I implied no such thing.
Comment 10/15/2007
That is in fact what you implied, my friend.
You claimed that KTK not supporting religion as an institution makes it hypocritical for him to call somebody out for bashing a certain denomination of religion. You assume that a rejection of religion implies an inherent “F- you, to each denomination.”
As for your question to me - let’s get a few things clear. One, I’m not “accusing” Coulter of anything. I’m taking her words at face value; I’m not prosecuting, Coulter is confessing. Two, (and this was KTK’s point)if contempt and intolerance for those who don’t agree with your views are inherent in the ideology of those views themselves, you can’t separate the two. You aren’t absolved of the implications of your beliefs, or their contradictions to the professed ideology of the society in which you live, just because you are of utmost sincerity in your beliefs. I’m sure many members of the KKK truly believe in the inherent superiority of the white race - that doesn’t mitigate the fact that such an idea is in blatant contradiction with the professed moraes of the greater society in which they live.
So, is it or is it not contempt for religion B to believe religion A?
Only if a tenet of religion A is that those who believe in religion A are superior than those who believe in religion B (and C,D,E…) by virtue of their belief in religion A. If that idea is not part of religion A, then you can certainly worship religion A with inherent contempt for religion B.
I think this is the first time I’ve ever written this, but, I think KTK’s explanation might have been simpler…
Comment 10/15/2007
“if contempt and intolerance for those who don’t agree with your views are inherent in the ideology of those views themselves, you can’t separate the two.”
I don’t know what religion you are talking about. It certainly isn’t the Christianity I know. There is nothing comtemptuous or intolerant about having a desire to tell others about the love of Jesus for sinners. I want everyone to know the joy of a right relationship with Christ. It appears to me that it is people with your viewpoint who are intolerant and contemptuous of those who do not share your ideology.
I think that there is no disagreement that Christians believe that salvation is through Christ only. You take that as a negative, and I see it as truth.
Comment 10/15/2007
contempt and intolerance for those who don’t agree with your views are inherent in the ideology of those views themselves
So I can’t think another person is wrong (at least if it relates to religion) without being contemptuous of them or intolerant (in the pejorative sense) of them?
If that’s true, “tolerance” truly is the only absolute for you.
But linking disagreement or belief in absolute truths with KKKism or Jihadism is a little bit of a rhetoric trick, don’t you think? Do you think that’s fair, digglahh?
Comment 10/15/2007
Linking religious fundamentalism with religious fundamentalism a trick?…
The “if” is the key word in the idea.
If it is part and parcel of a belief system that other belief systems are inferior then you can’t hold said belief system without being contemptuous of the other. You can still “tolerate” it - but that may be a semantic distinction.
I don’t know if you guys like sports, but here’s an analogy.
Having contempt for the Dallas Cowboys is an inherent element of the “religion” of New York Giants fandom.
It is not an inherent element of Carolina Panthers fandom.
So is, contempt of Dallas part and parcel of the support of a different football team? It depends on what team you support.
Comment 10/15/2007
I see absolutely nothing troubling, morally or otherwise, about either of those statements. Particularly not the latter.
Comment 10/15/2007
Yankees? I forget, are they from NYC? It’s been so long since I’ve seen them play. Perhaps they could use a fine set-up man named Eric Gagne…
Comment 10/15/2007
digglahh,
Gee, maybe I am morally superior than you . . . I can disagree with someone wholeheartedly and not despise them or view them contemptuously.
Comment 10/15/2007
“I don’t hold you in contempt, I just think you’re going to hell.”
Some consolation.
Comment 10/16/2007
Where did I say that I despise you.
The real issue here is tolerance. An individual is fully within his/her right to believe anything they want, even if at the core of that beliefs is their own inherent superiority by virtue of subscribing to their belief system. That individual has the right to think that I need guidance, that I am a sinner, and that I will spend eternity burning in a fiery dystopia because an invisible omniscient man in the sky is judging my every act against iron-clad behavioral codes transcribed on stone tablets or something… I, in turn, have the right to think that the tenets of such beliefs exhibit the telltale characteristics of numerous documented mental disorders.
However, neither one of us has the right to force our beliefs upon each other. Neither one of us has the right to materially and practically impede the other’s capacity to practice our beliefs freely, and openly. Neither one of us has the right to hinge societal rights to the adherence of either belief system. You can’t stop me from burning in hell, or subscribing to a lifestyle that will direct me there (provided that lifestyle is not in violation to the laws of my society, and even then, you aren’t the appropriate authorities to do the actual “stopping”).
We are free to judge, even free to hate. Ann Coulter can express whatever views she wants, provided she adheres to the guidelines set forth by the private institution airing her interview. (I guess we can avoid the whole public ownership of the airwaves debate here in the interest of simplicity). She just can’t ACT in the spirit of such beliefs in any manner that violates other laws of our country.
As for moral superiority - feel free to feel morally superior to me. Just tolerate my choice to live my life in sin and pursuit of perpetual burning in the fiery pit of hell (or as I like to call it, decomposition). After all, I do consider myself morally superior to most. It all kind of depends on your morals. You may be morally superior to me in terms of the way your life mirrors the morals you profess to believe (though, for many Christians, they don’t even win that battle). However, playing by my morals, I’m morally superior.
You can think you win the discussion by claiming that your morals are a divine truth passed down to you by the spirit of Jesus, but I don’t have to believe that because it is a logical fallacy. It is ostensibly using the word in its own definition.
But I don’t hate you, I just think you might be insane. And, I tolerate the insane. I even give them money when they panhandle on a subway, putting a little charity into their, shall we say, collection plate. And, I think that’s pretty fucking Christian of me!
Comment 10/16/2007
“even if at the core of that beliefs is their own inherent superiority by virtue of subscribing to their belief system.”
That is certainly a misstatement of the Christian viewpoint. Christian believe that we are saved by the grace of God. That doesn’t lead to a superiority complex. In fact, it leads to a sense of humility.
Comment 10/16/2007
If you believe that only people who share your beliefs are, or will be saved, if you believe that your relationship with God is the only “right” relationship, then you viewing yourself as superior to others is implicit in being a follower of your belief system. I don’t know what is so difficult to understand about that idea.
Like twenty posts ago you were talking about Coulter not needing to apologize for her beliefs because she truly believes them and she is echoing core beliefs of Christianity.
So are you saying that those are not core beliefs of Christianity, or that they are, but a sense of superiority is not inherent in those beliefs?
Would you mind answering the following questions, plase:
Do you believe that only Christians are/will be saved?
Do you believe that Christians are perfected Jews?
Do you think Coulter’s comments reflect core values of “true” Christianity?
If your answer to those questions is yes, please explain how a sense of Christian superiority is not implicit in those answers.
Comment 10/16/2007
In fact, it leads to a sense of humility.
Enough humility to concede that it might be your deeply-held beliefs that could be wrong? Somehow, I don’t think so.
Comment 10/16/2007
“Do you believe that only Christians are/will be saved?”
Yes, of course.
“Do you believe that Christians are perfected Jews?”
I had never heard it put like that so I would have to know exactly what she meant by that.
“Do you think Coulter’s comments reflect core values of “true” Christianity?”
Do you mean what she actually said in context or what liberals have proclaimed them to mean?
“If your answer to those questions is yes, please explain how a sense of Christian superiority is not implicit in those answers.”
I’ve already explained it in a previous post.
Comment 10/16/2007
“Enough humility to concede that it might be your deeply-held beliefs that could be wrong? Somehow, I don’t think so.”
Believing God’s word requires a sense of humility. If I didn’t believe what I believe is right, I would believe something else. My confidence is in God, not in myself.
Comment 10/16/2007
Christian believe that we are saved by the grace of God. That doesn’t lead to a superiority complex. In fact, it leads to a sense of humility.
That is what is supposed to pass as an explanation? So, you aren’t self-righteous, and you don’t exude a superiority complex because you consider yourself humble - because you believe you will be saved by “the grace of God” (whatever that is…).
Seriously, dude - what the fuck - that’s all I can say…
So, I’m special and saved; you are not. My people are perfect versions of your people - but I don’t consider myself better than you…
Well, perhaps the length from the top of my head to the bottom of my feet spans more inches than your does yours, but that doesn’t mean that would make me think that I’m taller than you or anything…
If this argument was represented in logically, in terms of Ps and Qs, there is no way to that your endorsement of the statements you endorse could lead to a conclusion other than assumed superiority. You seem to think that a simple denial, justified by your faith in something not proven to be real is a panacea for all that is logically inconsistent.
Comment 10/16/2007
“You seem to think that a simple denial, justified by your faith in something not proven to be real is a panacea for all that is logically inconsistent.”
Which concisely summarizes why you two will never get anywhere in this debate. Those of us who formulate our thoughts and actions based on reason are, by definition, unable to come to terms with those who formulate their thoughts and actions based on a belief system. Nor they with us. It ain’t gonna happen.
Comment 10/16/2007
substitue “logic” for “reason” above pls.
Comment 10/16/2007
“Those of us who formulate our thoughts and actions based on reason are, by definition, unable to come to terms with those who formulate their thoughts and actions based on a belief system.”
I understand your superiority complex. Does that mean that you hate those with whom you disagree?
Comment 10/17/2007
“Seriously, dude - what the fuck - that’s all I can say…”
That’s all you can say? Now that is a reasoned position. LOL
Comment 10/17/2007
Morris, I did not assign relative value to the two modes of thought. Any perceived superiority complex on my part might just be stemming from an inferiority complex on your part.
Comment 10/17/2007
“Morris, I did not assign relative value to the two modes of thought. Any perceived superiority complex on my part might just be stemming from an inferiority complex on your part.”
My apologies if I misunderstood what you said. It seemed that your statement did imply superiority of your thought process.
BTW, your assignment of an inferiority complex to me is without foundation and is laughable. I don’t think I have a superiority complex or a inferiority complex. I do have confidence in my reasoning skills. I believe that my faith in God is the result of a reasoned process. The assumption that I have put no thought into my beliefs and have just accepted them without reason is false.
Comment 10/17/2007
Morris, I have not claimed you have not put thought into your beliefs. In fact, I edited my own comment, replacing “reason” with “logic” because I wanted to be clear I was putting forth an unbiased statement and I thought that adjustment helped.
I am not questioning your reasoning skills. You use a belief system, I use logic. Of course we each have our reasons for doing so. My point is there is no way for us to have a meaningful debate on the merits of the two systems because our foundations are totally incompatible.
Comment 10/17/2007
“You use a belief system, I use logic.”
My belief system is based on logic. The belief came after the logic. There isn’t a conflict between the two. The very statement that your logic is superior is a belief system.
You are right though. As long as you are closed minded and believe your beliefs are logical and all others are illogical, it would be difficult to have a meaningful discussion.
Comment 10/17/2007
Morris, I have not been clear. My comments here pertain to religious dicussion only. I have no religious beliefs, so they are neither logical or illogical. And I am not tied to the term “logical”. Feel free to substitute whatever word won’t offend you.
Comment 10/17/2007
Morris,
I believe that my faith in God is the result of a reasoned process.
Could you explain this? What is faith here? What reasoned process leads to the conclusion of this faith?
Comment 10/18/2007
Let’s deal with some semantic issues, as I see them.
One, what is “faith” without a leap of logic or reason? Perfectly reasoned would basically denote being provable - so what is the big deal about having “faith” in the known? Faith, and religious beliefs are logical in the sense that they follow from the given premises in a clear and predictable fashion, but they are not rational in the empirical sense.
Two, and here’s where it gets tricky, I consider the idea of a religion to simply be a system of beliefs that governs decisions and defines values. I’m equally willing to call science “a belief system” as I am to call Christianity a belief system. I’d also be willing to call science a religion. Basically, I see a functional and proper definition of the word “religion.” Christianity is a religion, with an implied capital R. Science is a religion too, just with a lowercase R.
So, use whatever terms you are comfortable with, Morris. I for one am not trying to take subtle semantic swipes at you. As you’ve seen, my swipes are explicit…
Comment 10/18/2007
Very good. I like it. I haven’t a clue as to what you said, but it seemed well thought out. Plain speech can be boring.
Comment 10/18/2007
What I said related to your contention that your faith was an extension of your logic and reason.
Reason, as a theoretical construct, is linear, and perfect-able.
Faith implies a belief in an idea despite the absence of complete, prov-able reasoning.
If your faith is based on reason, it is not really faith; you are undermining the essence of the term. How meaningful is it if I proclaim that I have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow morning?… It is virtually proven that it will, so how could I tout my faith as anything meaningful?
Again, we are dealing with formal and functional definitions. In the everyday sense, you can say that your faith is an outgrowth of your specific logic and reasoning. But, as theoretical constructs, faith and reason have something of an inversely proportionate relationship.
Game 6 tonight, I was out late last night, and I got some Ebay auctions to watch, the last thing I was expecting to have to do tonight was go home and brush up on Kierkegaard…
Comment 10/18/2007
Game 6? Manny says who cares, so I might not even watch…
Comment 10/18/2007
Oh, c’mon, Ted.
You know that’s not what he meant.
He simply stated that he would not become an emotional wreck if the team lost. He did not imply that he would not do his absolute best to prevent that outcome from happening.
So far this postseason, he’s 9/21 with 10 walks, 4 homers, and 11 RBI in seven games. He’s hitting over .400, his OBP is over .600, and his SLG is over 1.000. It’s pretty safe to say that Manny is trying.
Comment 10/18/2007
“If your faith is based on reason, it is not really faith; you are undermining the essence of the term.”
Your premise that faith cannot be based on reason is wrong. I can have faith in my wife based on reasonable expectations and experience. I did not just wake up one day and decide that I would have faith that is baseless.
Comment 10/18/2007
Digg, understand that I have been a dedicated Red Sox fan since 1966. I have watched at least 140 games this year.
Manny is in his own world. A couple of years ago, right before or as the Sox were playing the Yankees in the playoffs, he mentioned he would like to play in NY. I honestly don’t think he means any harm, he just has no clue as to the impact of his words on the fans who pay his salary.
Comment 10/18/2007
unless votes are already in lockbox, Becket is AL CYA winner. And Manny continues to be Manny…
I hope Schilling is mainlining HGH.
Comment 10/18/2007
Digg > we exercise a certain level of faith every day. Faith is based on your belief system. And everyone has one. Once a person’s faith in something is shaken, it takes a long time to recover. i.e. - people have faith that the chair they are going to sit down on will hold them. they will sit down hundreds of times without even thinking about it. However, the first time the chair breaks, watch how they sit afterwards. Guaranteed they will check the chair to see if it will hold until their faith is rebuilt and they just start sitting again.
Thus, often faith is based upon the belief system that has been logically developed over time.
Comment 10/19/2007
Heck, we can use the word “faith” in lots of different contexts, but this discussion is about religious faith (with a bit of baseball on the side). I not say I have faith in a chair, I would say that, based on past experience with other similar devices, I assume it will support my weight. If it is a chair that I have already sat in, then I have demonstrated that the chair will support my weight.
I have difficulty extrapolating anything about my relationship with a chair to some other’s relationship with a god. No living person has ever had demonstrable contact with a god. There is zero scientific evidence of the existence of any god. This is why believing in a god requires faith.
Substitute Morris’s wife for your chair. I doubt Morris had “faith” in the person who became his wife before he met her, or even after he just met her. His “faith” in her (and this really is a different use of the word in this context) is based on his actual interactions with her. Real, live, interactions. So again, unrelated to the concept of faith in a god.
(Note that I refer to “a god” because I am well aware that there are many different gods currently being worshiped, and of course many more that have faded with the passage of time. Believing in each god requires the same faith.)
Comment 10/19/2007
No living person has ever had demonstrable contact with a god.”
Really? How do you know this? You have faith that no one has because you haven’t had such an experience or no one that you have faith in has had the experience. If you think about it, there are probably plenty of times you have had faith in someone’s experience because it fits your idea of what is possible.
Comment 10/20/2007
Fred, the key word is demonstrable.
Comment 10/20/2007
“the key word is demonstrable.”
George, and of course it must be demonstrated to you or someone in whom you have placed your faith.
Comment 10/22/2007
Wait a minute, Ted. Grilled cheese isn’t demonstrable?
BTW, did anybody see this week’s Real Time w/ Bill Maher. He showed the picture of the bonfire that people claimed represented the Pope, and then showed other people in similar poses. It was pretty funny. “…Could be Tom Brady!”
BTW, even Jesus and his apostles couldn’t beat the Pats this year!
But seriously, Morris. If your beliefs contradict many of the basic tenets accepted by the world, tenets that have been pretty clearly proven, the onus is on you to prove your beliefs.
It is not up to me to demonstrably prove that nobody has had personal contact with God. It is up to you to prove that they have.
When the weapons inspectors gave Rummy the report he didn’t want to hear, he countered with, “The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.” I’m sure we’ll get a similar song from you here, Morris.
Comment 10/22/2007
Ann Coulter really does not know what it means to be Christian as she is completely out of her depth expecting anyone to become Christian. Especially if she is the example. All Republicans should be ashamed for letting her speak at their fund raisers as Coulter is nothing more then a vicious mouth piece who represents nothing more then a small minority of right wing extremists of hate and war mongers who love to be told what to think. If Christ almighty were to pay us a quick little site visit, he would have one thing to say to the Ann Coulters, right wingers & Republicans of the USA….”Be Gone, I never knew any of you”! Instead of the Jewish Pharisees and Sanhedrin of Jesus time, He would have an entirely new group of hypocrites to admonish composed mainly of Republicans, Coulter and their extremist sycophants.
The problem with the Ann Coulters of the world is the fact that they usually cannot find anything filthier then their own personal reflection. As such, they almost always wind up attacking others in order to make themselves feel superior. And when that does not work…no problem…they simply make up lies about others and resort to tactics that Jesus Christ himself would condemn. If Adolph Hitler could have met Ann Coulter, he would not have thought twice about putting her in full charge of his Gestapo. A perfect match…
If Coulter and Republicans are supposed to be the good guys…I don’t even want to see the bad guys.
Comment 10/22/2007
Morris, by the very nature of a god, it is impossible for a living person to have demonstrable contact with one. That is my point. Many people claim to have had contact with their god, and perhaps they have. But that is irrelevant to this discussion.
Let me try once more, and then I’m done. Way to much effort for a simple observation.
People of faith (ie religious people) and godless heathens are unable to justify their positions to each other due to a lack of common ground. Which is not to say they can’t accept each other, but they can’t articulate their position in terms that are accepted by the other. That’s all I’ve been trying to say.
On a different subject, you have several times mentioned that the Catholic church is bad for Christianity - or words to that effect. I’m not sure, and if Tgirsch is reading along still he probably knows, but wasn’t the Catholic church the only form of organized Christianity until Martin Luther? If that is the case (and as I said, I could be wrong), it strikes me as odd that after Jesus makes his appearance on earth, it takes about 1500 years for organized religion to evolve to where it is true to his intention. Well, that and the fact that 2/3s of the world’s population was not and has not been directly exposed to the religion. I am curious as to why Christianity’s god has ignored such a vast number of people. And no, I don’t expect anyone to have an answer as to why.
Comment 10/22/2007
“BTW, even Jesus and his apostles couldn’t beat the Pats this year!”
They could beat them in the areas of integrity and morality.
“the onus is on you to prove your beliefs.”
I don’t think I need to prove anything to you.
Comment 10/22/2007
“As such, they almost always wind up attacking others in order to make themselves feel superior.”
That sounds like your post.
Comment 10/22/2007
“wasn’t the Catholic church the only form of organized Christianity until Martin Luther?”
No
Comment 10/22/2007
Ted,
As to “The Catholic Church” being the only organized Christianity, it rather depends what you mean by “The Church”.
Looking at a rough timeline, Christians got their first coherent organization, I’d guess, around 210AD. The first great schism was in 1054, but that completely ignores the various councils in which doctrine was “agreed” upon, the first major one being the Council of Nicea in 325.
Mind you, “agree”ing on doctrine usually consisted of the usual political power strugles found in any convention on a party platform, along with the usual cloak-dagger-and-a-few-assassinations of any contest over who had “divine rights” over land and peasants. Top that off with the added fun of declaring the losers heretics to be purged, and you’ve got genocidal internecine conflicts beginning less that three centuries after a Jewish hippy told people to not sweat the letter of the law and be nice to each other.
Comment 10/23/2007
“the first major one being the Council of Nicea in 325.”
The Council of Jerusalem was earlier (circa A.D. 50).
Comment 10/23/2007
Ah, okay. 50AD, then. I was giving them the benefit of the doubt that they at least hadn’t starting porgroms against the losers yet. At least, I’m pretty sure they hadn’t wiped out the gnostics yet by 50.
Comment 10/23/2007
“I’m pretty sure they hadn’t wiped out the gnostics yet by 50.”
Who are “they”?
Comment 10/23/2007
Dan, thanks for the info. Unfortunately, I’m still in the dark. Were there other organized Christian religions of significance (measured by membership) more than 500 years ago? If you happen to know….
Morris, your alter ego (Fred) is showing through more and more with each passing day.
Comment 10/23/2007