Coulter's Anti-Catholic Slur

[catsrus]

I’ve always considered Coulter as a mean, vicious person who would say anything about anyone for publicity.
She continues to support my opinion of her every time she opens her mouth.
Some try to paint her as a pundit looking for laughs. If she’s funny in any way, I have failed to see it and stopped looking for any humor in her remarks long ago.

 

[martino]

I’ve always considered Coulter as a mean, vicious person who would say anything about anyone for publicity.
She continues to support my opinion of her every time she opens her mouth.
Some try to paint her as a pundit looking for laughs. If she’s funny in any way, I have failed to see it and stopped looking for any humor in her remarks long ago.

ive always found those that dont like her both vicious and mean. i guess the only difference is that what comes out of* her* mouth is the truth.

anytime someone cannot deny the truth of something she says they call her mean and vicious.

 

[jkatpc]

For those who are frequent travellers in Ann’s forums, there is quite a bit of debate as to what specific path of Christianity she belongs to. The fact t hat she strongly supports the Catholic position in her position on abortion, homosexual conduct and chastity and some unsubstantiated sighting of her in an undisclosed New York Catholic cathedral circumstantially support an opinion that she may be leaning toward Catholicism.

Anyway, as a lay person, she has my forebearance for being wrong in some theological areas. What is probably more correct in both her reference and her inference is the sin of trying to “buy” your way into heaven, which is what I believe she meant. A filthy rich hypocrite who, let’s say, owns a mansion that consumes 20 times the energy of the average American home should not expect to be able to offset the “sin” of his actions by forking out a monetary compensation, yet refusing to pledge to reduce his personal consumption of energy (in other words, refuse to reform his lifestyle).

 

[a_priori]

Ann Coulter is a polemicist. Polemicists are generally annoying and almost always bad for one’s digestion regardless of ideology IMHO. If one has a point to make they should calm down and make it.

 

[martino]

Its fine to disagree with her style but its impossible to refute the arguments.

Of all the people who had something bad to say about Ann, none of them have refuted what she said.

Personally speaking, I have always felt that the selling of indulgences was bad.

 

[a_priori]

Its fine to disagree with her style but its impossible to refute the arguments.

Of all the people who had something bad to say about Ann, none of them have refuted what she said.

Personally speaking, I have always felt that the selling of indulgences was bad.

Of course the selling of indulgences was wrong. And Calvin shouldn’t have been drowning pregnant women along with their unborn children either. (William Manchester, A World Lit Only By Fire, pp.190) History is littered with examples of funky hermeneutics causing bad behavior.

That’s not the point. Pulling out your flamethrower does not help advance your point of view in the marketplace of ideas. It feels great. Very therapeutic. But not all that useful.

 

[MJE]

I think one of her parents is a catholic and the other a protestent.

 

[litllulu]

ive always found those that dont like her both vicious and mean. i guess the only difference is that what comes out of* her* mouth is the truth.

anytime someone cannot deny the truth of something she says they call her mean and vicious.

You DO know she is friends with Bill Maher right?:whacky: HAHA

 

[b_justb]

Anne Coulter said something insulting? STOP THE PRESSES !!!

 

[litllulu]

Anne Coulter said something insulting? STOP THE PRESSES !!!

She is very smart behind that spitfire part. Believe it or not, most people don’t though.

 

[MrS]

Maybe Hannity will invite her on his show…

and then shout down her position while he (Hannity) vigorously defends the Church.

smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_11_6.gif

%between%

 

[cheese_sdc]

She is very smart behind that spitfire part. Believe it or not, most people don’t though.

I don’t.

 

[Dandelion_Wine]

i guess the only difference is that what comes out of* her* mouth is the truth.

It continually amazes me at the defense of people like Hannity and Coulter by certain Catholics on this board. It would seem that people get a free pass to say whatever they want, as long as they belong to the same party. It’s defended or minimized or justified. If the SAME things were said by the opposite party, there’d be hell to pay.

 

[Dwyer]

You need to put the “selling” of Papal Indulgences in its historical European context though.

During the Dark Ages, if someone committed a crime against another person, the custom was to pay an amount of money to the wronged party or their family as restitution. This was called the “Weregeld” or “man money.” It is the basis of our tort law system in the English speaking world, and that’s why people sue doctors for malpractice, or when they get beat up by cops, or when they get food poisoning at a restaurant. If the money wasn’t paid, a bloodfeud would develop, and one group of kinsmen would fight another group of kinsmen.

The Papacy applied this concept to Indulgences. A sin is a crime against God. So the Papacy asked people to pay for Indulgences to absolve them of all their sin. It sounds terrible to Modern ears, Church + Selling +Money, but that was the normal legal custom and practice in Medieval Europe since the fall of the Roman Empire, or just shorlty thereafter.

Of course, nobody ever points this out. Not in high school texbooks, or college courses, or the History channel, or PBS.

But that’s all you hear about: The Catholic Church sold Indulgences during the Middle Ages, therefore it was corrupt.
As I have shown, selling of the Indulgence was in complete sinc with normal legal practices of the time.

Now there were abuses of the Indulgences. The Indulgence couldn’t be sold to get a deceased person out of Purgatory, but it was. This is what Luther was complaining about.

There was a good Catholic Answers Indulgences program with Dr. Angelino D’Ambrosio a few years back on Catholic Answers. Go to Catholic.com to the Radio Archive. Every Catholic should listen to it.

 

[martino]

It continually amazes me at the defense of people like Hannity and Coulter by certain Catholics on this board. It would seem that people get a free pass to say whatever they want, as long as they belong to the same party. It’s defended or minimized or justified. If the SAME things were said by the opposite party, there’d be hell to pay.

Why are you even lumping Hannity and Coulter together other than the fact that they belong to the same party?

Hannity is a Catholic and he publicly denounced Catholic teaching.

Coulter is not a Catholic and all she did was make reference to the fact that the Church was selling papal indulgences.

I dont think those two things are similar at all.

 

[marybee]

Why are you even lumping Hannity and Coulter together other than the fact that they belong to the same party?

Hannity is a Catholic and he publicly denounced Catholic teaching.

Coulter is not a Catholic and all she did was make reference to the fact that the Church was selling papal indulgences.

I dont think those two things are similar at all.

Martino, you make a good point. People try to make parallels where there are none! There is a huge difference between the two. I think people like to attack her for personal reasons and they don’t attack her on the issues. Their complaints against her have no substance.

 

[martino]

Martino, you make a good point. People try to make parallels where there are none! There is a huge difference between the two. I think people like to attack her for personal reasons and they don’t attack her on the issues. Their complaints against her have no substance.

Marybee, that is true. At least when she attacks someone she is making a point about an issue. She is never challenged on the point that she made but only on the way she made it.

That in itself proves one of her main points, that liberals cannot debate the issues.

 

[BlyssfulDreamer]

Ann isn’t Ann unless she is slamming and ridiculing someone. I would hate to make a living that way. She got her start in the public arena during the Clinton impeachment hearings. I don’t think anyone knew who she was before. Now, if only she would crawl back under her rock.

:heart:Blyss

 

[martino]

Ann isn’t Ann unless she is slamming and ridiculing someone. I would hate to make a living that way. She got her start in the public arena during the Clinton impeachment hearings. I don’t think anyone knew who she was before. Now, if only she would crawl back under her rock.

:heart:Blyss

Would you like to know what she was doing before that or would you like to debate the Clinton impeachment hearings?

 

[marybee]

Ann isn’t Ann unless she is slamming and ridiculing someone. I would hate to make a living that way. She got her start in the public arena during the Clinton impeachment hearings. I don’t think anyone knew who she was before. Now, if only she would crawl back under her rock.

:heart:Blyss

Could it be that she actually became popular because of her intellect or for her ideas? She may have a style that you don’t like but you can’t say that she is popular because of her sense of humor. She obviously has some good ideas or the left would not hate her so much.