Coulter's Anti-Catholic Slur

  • Thread starter Thread starter tclay
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
rlg94086 said:
I agree UH, but I am going to bring it up on her forum regardless. The indulgences parallel to carbon offsets is clever; it is only tying “false religions” to “inquisitions” that is troubling. It is clear from the article that she is painting Global Warming as the false religion, but she (probably inadvertantly) inferred that our Church is also a false religion.
Click to expand...
I guess I see it as her just being Ann Coulter:

1 - “I am a Protestant.”
2 - “I am always right.”
3 - “Therefore, Catholics are fair game for some degree of ridicule, because I disagree with them and this is how I make my arguments, couched in ridicule.”

So I don’t think her taking a shot at the Church was inadvertant, but neither do I attach too much importance to it. I think she likes to put people she disagrees with on the defensive by provoking or trying to offend them.

I must admit I do laugh at her antics, but eventually I think name-calling and ridiculing others can lead to disdain and contempt for others. … and ultimately is kind of self-defeating. It doesn’t exactly encourage us to heroic virtue. 😃
 
Dear Godfollower and others<
I did not mean that people like Novak should take her on publicly, but rather that they approach her as colleagues and point out to her how inappropriate and counterproductive her remarks were. By the way, she did not say “the selling of indulgences” but simply papal indulgences and that is what I would expect a Protestant to think. Today, however, must of us do not make a habit of saying publicly what we think about certain things. For instance, there is a time for pointing out that Luther was on balance was a disaster for Christianity and civilization and that none of the excesses of the Chruch of that time justified his contention that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is a worse abomination than murder or adultery. Luther did, fact, say that but I would not bring it up at a pro-Life rally! Her penchant for hyperbole notwithstsanding, Dr. Coulter has in her other writings done a great job of denouncing the secularization of America, with its attendandt love of abortion, sodomy, evolution, nihilism, etc. I also think that every Left Wing Cathoolic who believes that there never were any Communists and that even though they didn’t exist they were good people should read Treason. Yes I am aware that some Tradtionalists see her as just another pro-War neocon, but few have done as much as she has to combat Liberalism. That is why someone needs to get to her and tell her provately to knock of the cliche anit-Catholic stuff. I guess I’m a bit a a hypocrit, becuase I thought it pretty funny when she called the CoE the “Church of the Proper Fork.” Yeah, I still thing that one is funny!
 
tclay said:
Dear Godfollower and others<
I did not mean that people like Novak should take her on publicly, but rather that they approach her as colleagues and point out to her how inappropriate and counterproductive her remarks were. By the way, she did not say “the selling of indulgences” but simply papal indulgences and that is what I would expect a Protestant to think. Today, however, must of us do not make a habit of saying publicly what we think about certain things. For instance, there is a time for pointing out that Luther was on balance was a disaster for Christianity and civilization and that none of the excesses of the Chruch of that time justified his contention that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is a worse abomination than murder or adultery. Luther did, fact, say that but I would not bring it up at a pro-Life rally! Her penchant for hyperbole notwithstsanding, Dr. Coulter has in her other writings done a great job of denouncing the secularization of America, with its attendandt love of abortion, sodomy, evolution, nihilism, etc. I also think that every Left Wing Cathoolic who believes that there never were any Communists and that even though they didn’t exist they were good people should read Treason. Yes I am aware that some Tradtionalists see her as just another pro-War neocon, but few have done as much as she has to combat Liberalism. That is why someone needs to get to her and tell her provately to knock of the cliche anit-Catholic stuff. I guess I’m a bit a a hypocrit, becuase I thought it pretty funny when she called the CoE the “Church of the Proper Fork.” Yeah, I still thing that one is funny!
Click to expand...
Yes Treason is an excellent book and I wish everyone would read it. I am glad to hear that you appreciate the bulk of her work.

As for this Catholic thing…I don’t think she was saying that “indulgences” in general are corrupt but only referring to the “corrupt practices” that were taking place at the time of the Reformation.

As much as I dont hate to be reminded of the corruption in the Church back then, I actually think it was a pretty good analogy for the point she was making.

Sure she could have tried to find another analogy that wouldn’t upset anyone but I dont know if they would have made the point as well as she did.

Just keep in mind 2 things; 1) her point was not to smear the Church and 2) she didn’t say anything that wasn’t true.
 
Michael_C said:
Wow, I was always a fan of Ann Coulter. I used to like Sean Hannity too. I’m done with both of them. it’s that easy for me. These senseless attacks are so uneducated and show so little knowledge of what Catholics actually believe that my respect for them has dropped immensley.
Click to expand...
Michael, what did she say that was false?

Put aside the question of wether or not it was a good decision to say it. You are saying that her recent remark shows how little knowledge she has on the subject. I would like for you to educate us all and tell us that the practices of indulgences were not corrupt during the time of the reformation.
 
martino said:
Michael, what did she say that was false?

Put aside the question of wether or not it was a good decision to say it. You are saying that her recent remark shows how little knowledge she has on the subject. I would like for you to educate us all and tell us that the practices of indulgences were not corrupt during the time of the reformation.
Click to expand...
I think they are saying that it is wrong to say that indulgences are evil, thats all. Not only that, but she is using it as some liberal global warming example.:confused:

Someone could misconstrue her example because she does not include selling or corruption, she only uses the word ‘indulgence’:confused:

I think we need to give credit where credit is due and ignore the rest.
 
litllulu said:
I think they are saying that it is wrong to say that indulgences are evil, thats all. Not only that, but she is using it as some liberal global warming example.:confused:

I think we need to give credit where credit is due and ignore the rest.
Click to expand...
ok but she didnt say that indulgences were evil, she said the practices were corrupt over time. that is a true statement. i wish is wasnt true and then she couldnt have used it in her column but that is not the case.

the reason that it was a good analogy is because she is making the point that liberals are “buying” forgiveness for their consumption of engergy. i cant think of a better analogy than the one she used. it seems to be the obvious comparison.
 
martino said:
ok but she didnt say that indulgences were evil, she said the practices were corrupt over time. that is a true statement. i wish is wasnt true and then she couldnt have used it in her column but that is not the case.

the reason that it was a good analogy is because she is making the point that liberals are “buying” forgiveness for their consumption of engergy. i cant think of a better analogy than the one she used. it seems to be the obvious comparison.
Click to expand...
The others did not read that into her article, that is what they were saying. It may be inferred, but she did not come out and say that. I appreciate your analysis though.
 
litllulu said:
The others did not read that into her article, that is what they were saying. It may be inferred, but she did not come out and say that. I appreciate your analysis though.
Click to expand...
That is definitely the way i took it and i believe that is the way it was meant. I think if you read the entire column you will come away with the same idea.
 
I do not like Coulter as she is a racist who advocated The Bell Curve.
As Coulter well knows, the misuse of an idea for evil purposes does not mean that idea is wrong. In fact, she accuses liberals of making this very error: She attacks them for worrying that the message of racial inequality conveyed by the book *The Bell Curve *could promote genocide: “Only liberals could interpret a statement that people have varying IQs as a call to start killing people.” Back at you, Ann: Only conservatives could interpret a statement that species evolved as a call to start killing people.
Click to expand...
talkreason.org/articles/coultergeist.cfm
 
martino said:
That is definitely the way i took it and i believe that is the way it was meant. I think if you read the entire column you will come away with the same idea.
Click to expand...
That is possible. Maybe it was written poorly since so many did not understand what she was saying. I conceded she had many good ideas including abortion and homosexual marriage.
 
martino said:
That is definitely the way i took it and i believe that is the way it was meant. I think if you read the entire column you will come away with the same idea.
Click to expand...
yes i think that is the way people are reading it. in the very next sentence she specifially mentions the “selling of papal indulgences”, so unless you take the remark out of context i do not see how you could come to that conclusion.
 
litllulu said:
That is possible. Maybe it was written poorly since so many did not understand what she was saying. I conceded she had many good ideas including abortion and homosexual marriage.
Click to expand...
yes i think that is the way people are reading it but in the very next sentence she specifially mentions the “selling of papal indulgences”, so unless you take the remark out of context i do not see how you could come to that conclusion.
 
ribozyme said:
In Godless, she advocated ideas from The Bell Curve, a racist tract that argues the Blacks are inherently inferior.
Click to expand...
I dont think this is entirely true. I read Godless and I do remember the Bell Curve coming up in one of her chapters. I think it was the same chapter that she discredited Darwinism. I will take another look and get back to you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top