Coulter's Anti-Catholic Slur

[Tom317]

Ok im sorry, correction…some people have read it but were incapable of understanding it.

Tom, its funny we both used that last line to make our point. But you used it wrong…your not even paying attention to the entire sentence, much less the entire article.

Please respond to my earlier explanation of that last line.

I disagree.

I understand she was trying to tie the point to her statements about the religion of liberalism, and had she included that in her last sentence, then I would have no problem at all. However, she wrote the article, she did not mis-speak during a conversation, she had plenty of time to proof her work, and yet that sentence made it into the final draft.

I do not care how strong an apologist you are for Ann, the simple truth is she wrote a line saying that false religions use courts of inquistion (and it is not mystery what religion did that). She did not qualify the remark, nor did she give any enlightened information about the sale of indulgences.

Her method is to slam as many people as she can in order to drive home her point and to increase her bottom line. In her world, it is all about her, and it makes no difference who she slams or who she hurts. If she cared, she would have qualified her remarks, the fact that she did not qualify her remarks tells us she intended to slam the Catholic faith.

 

[Tom317]

That makes the point that maybe while she is trying to have a conservative ideology she still reinforces the bad behavior that is antiCatholic by wearing such provocative outfits. So she preaches abstinance and then provokes the men to have lustfull thougts about her by showing cleavage and of course her long legs.

Exactly. She is a hypocrite and I fear she is only in it for the money. It is very clear to me that she only cares about increasing her bottom line. She will do that by wearing provocative clothes and by slamming anyone in her sight.

 

[Tom317]

So Tom, in your mind the article was about Catholicism, not liberalism?

Here is the last line in her column:

“Only a false religion needs hate mail, threats, courts of inquisition and Hollywood movies to sustain it.”

None of those things refer to the Catholic Church, she had just finsished giving multiple examples of these things taking place in the Liberal church. After given her liberal example of hate mail she even added "…one can’t imagine the pope writing a letter to Jerry Falwell saying, “If you continue to speak out, you won’t live to see further infallibility.”

You see, the Church is the example of true religion and liberism is the example of false religion. That is why when she talks about liberal hate mail she adds the the Pope would not behave that way.

Do you really believe that Ann Coulter thinks the Catholic church needs “Hollywood movies to sustain it” ?

Seriously…do you?

I think Ann knows that the Catholic Church held courts of inquistion, just as she knows that the Catholic Church sol indulgences, and yet she included both of those issues in her article. You want to deny what she said, fine. However, she quite clearly said that false religions use courts of inquistions (along with other things too).

If she has any intelligence, then she knows that her statements would be a slam to Catholics.

 

[marybee]

I disagree.

I understand she was trying to tie the point to her statements about the religion of liberalism, and had she included that in her last sentence, then I would have no problem at all. However, she wrote the article, she did not mis-speak during a conversation, she had plenty of time to proof her work, and yet that sentence made it into the final draft.

I do not care how strong an apologist you are for Ann, the simple truth is she wrote a line saying that false religions use courts of inquistion (and it is not mystery what religion did that). She did not qualify the remark, nor did she give any enlightened information about the sale of indulgences.

Her method is to slam as many people as she can in order to drive home her point and to increase her bottom line. In her world, it is all about her, and it makes no difference who she slams or who she hurts. If she cared, she would have qualified her remarks, the fact that she did not qualify her remarks tells us she intended to slam the Catholic faith.

I do not think you are being fair to martino here. He disagrees on the way you interpretting the article, he is not saying she is a saint worthy of worship. This is about whether or not Ann’s article is anticatholic. Martino sees her comments meaning somehting different. He is defending the article, not Ann personally.

 

[Tom317]

I do not think you are being fair to martino here. He disagrees on the way you interpretting the article, he is not saying she is a saint worthy of worship. This is about whether or not Ann’s article is anticatholic. Martino sees her comments meaning somehting different. He is defending the article, not Ann personally.

He is doing so in such a strong way that I feel my statement still applies.

 

[martino]

I disagree.

I understand she was trying to tie the point to her statements about the religion of liberalism, and had she included that in her last sentence, then I would have no problem at all. However, she wrote the article, she did not mis-speak during a conversation, she had plenty of time to proof her work, and yet that sentence made it into the final draft.

I do not care how strong an apologist you are for Ann, the simple truth is she wrote a line saying that false religions use courts of inquistion (and it is not mystery what religion did that). She did not qualify the remark, nor did she give any enlightened information about the sale of indulgences.

Her method is to slam as many people as she can in order to drive home her point and to increase her bottom line. In her world, it is all about her, and it makes no difference who she slams or who she hurts. If she cared, she would have qualified her remarks, the fact that she did not qualify her remarks tells us she intended to slam the Catholic faith.

Ok so for the record, what you gathered from her column which you read twice is that the Catholic Church is a false religion that relies on hate mail, threats, courts and Hollywood movies to sustain it? That is what you got from it?

Ok Tom that makes alot of sense. The most difficult part in all of this for me is trying to comprehend that you read the article not once but twice and still come away with this conclusion.

Not to be rude but maybe she is just on another level.

 

[Tom317]

Ok so for the record, what you gathered from her column which you read twice is that the Catholic Church is a false religion that relies on hate mail, threats, courts and Hollywood movies to sustain it? That is what you got from it?

Ok Tom that makes alot of sense. The most difficult part in all of this for me is trying to comprehend that you read the article not once but twice and still come away with this conclusion.

Not to be rude but maybe she is just on another level.

Ann never said that a false religion does all of those things, she simply compiled a statement of what false religions do, and in that statement she claims false religions use courts of inquisition. Frankly, I am shocked that you cannot see this.

In other words, if a religion does any of those things she listed, then it is a false religion. It was not an all or nothing statement as you are trying to imply.

 

[marybee]

She also refers to being burnt at the stake. Anyone want to jump on that? This is the original article we were debating.
She uses the words, “official church doctrine on global warming” This kinda proves martinos point!

 

[Tom317]

She also refers to being burnt at the stake. Anyone want to jump on that? This is the original article we were debating.
She uses the words, “official church doctrine on global warming” This kinda proves martinos point!

No, it does not. She ends her article with an unqualitified statement that false religions do “x.” In that “x” she includes courts of inquisition…sorry, she wrote, and you can apologize for her all day and it won’t change the facts.

 

[Tom317]

She also refers to being burnt at the stake. Anyone want to jump on that? This is the original article we were debating.
She uses the words, “official church doctrine on global warming” This kinda proves martinos point!

BTW, liberals do not hold courts of inquistion over global warming, at least not yet. So, her reference to “official Church docrine” is meaningless to her statement about courts of inquisition.

You can say she probably made a mistake in the way she wrote her article, or that you think she meant well, anything like that. However, she wrote “false religions,” she sid not write “the false religion of liberalism.” If she had written “the false religion of liberalism does x,” then I would not be on this thread.

 

[Michael_C]

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, Why don’t you watch the tone. before being educated on Anne’s remark you need to be educated on responding to posts.

Anne’s remark can be taken as an accurate statement if you really want to stretch. She doesn’t say the practice of selling indulgences during the reformation…does she?

She says the practice of Papal indulgences. I partake in those practices. Can you tell me how devoutly praying the stations of the cross is corrupt, because you get an indulgence for that?

 

[marybee]

Isn’t it obvious that she does not 100% agree with Catholicism, hence she is not Catholic. If she did agree 100% she would be a Catholic. The mere fact that she is a prot tells me that although she may defend most of what the CC teaches, she is not a Catholic and disagrees with somehting. If you made a comment on the Baptist or Presbyterian religion and not agreeing with it, you would in fact be calling it a “false religion” as you put it. She is not Catholic, therefore does not believe it is the true religion. You can call her religion a “false” religion if you care to as well. And by doing so would you mean to offend the entire protestant church? of course not.

 

[a_priori]

The thing about media figures like Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh and Al Franken is that they thrive on preaching to the faithful. Their arguments are never meant to convince the other side but rather to keep their side feeling good about their positions. Their attacks are taken as truth by their faithful and insults by the opposition, the whole while adding virtually nothing to the dialogue of ideas that should be going on in this country.

Frankly American Democracy would do alot better if the polemicists on both sides would just shut up. What we need is real critical thinking and real debate. We need people who are less interested in ideology and more interested in ideas. We need more pragmaticism and less ideology.

–
Bill

This is exactly on target. Thank you.

 

[Tom317]

Isn’t it obvious that she does not 100% agree with Catholicism, hence she is not Catholic. If she did agree 100% she would be a Catholic. The mere fact that she is a prot tells me that although she may defend most of what the CC teaches, she is not a Catholic and disagrees with somehting. If you made a comment on the Baptist or Presbyterian religion and not agreeing with it, you would in fact be calling it a “false religion” as you put it. She is not Catholic, therefore does not believe it is the true religion. You can call her religion a “false” religion if you care to as well. And by doing so would you mean to offend the entire protestant church? of course not.

I never called her religion false, she is the one that used the words “false religion.” I do not give a whit what religion she belongs to, I just also do not like when she insults the Catholic faith.

 

[Orionthehunter]

Did anyone else catch Ann Coulter’s vicious and gratuitous slam at the Catholic Church in her column yesterday? She has a paragraph that begins, “It took the Catholic Church hundreds of years to come up with the corrupt practice of papal indulgences.”
I certainly hope that some Catholic in public life like Robert Novak or Buckley or Bill Donohue will take her on. I was shocked! Perhaps I should not have been.

townhall.com/columnists/AnnCoulter/2007/03/21/the_coming_***_age
you need to click on the more+ at the right of the screen and look for A. Coulter for the article
Anne Carmel

I’m confused. Hasn’t the church admitted that some practices of popes, bishops and priests with regard to indulgences and the administration of the sacraments were abuses?

I don’t like the idea of defending her but considering her normal “tone”, this doesn’t belie an anti-Catholic attitude but actually pretty criticism of something we have admitted was corrupt.

 

[martino]

Ann never said that a false religion does all of those things, she simply compiled a statement of what false religions do…

I couldnt come up with a better refutation for your statement than you did so I am just copying it again.

 

[rlg94086]

I’m confused. Hasn’t the church admitted that some practices of popes, bishops and priests with regard to indulgences and the administration of the sacraments were abuses?

I don’t like the idea of defending her but considering her normal “tone”, this doesn’t belie an anti-Catholic attitude but actually pretty criticism of something we have admitted was corrupt.

I agree. The only trouble I had was her inferrace that the Catholic Church is a false religion (this is inferred by the juxtaposition of “false religion” and “inquisition”). I brought it up on her Forum, but it has not been responded to…they are two busy ridiculing another poster.

No one on her forum is Catholic bashing btw…only one ex-Catholic brought up that “Catholics may get upset.” Besides myself, only one other Catholic made a mention, and it was defending her on the “indulgences,” which I agree with.

Overall, it was a brilliant article comparing carbon offsets to the selling of indulgences. And describing Global Warming as a false religion. I just think she used clumsy wording at the end.

 

[martino]

Ann never said that a false religion does all of those things, she simply compiled a statement of what false religions do, and in that statement she claims false religions use courts of inquisition. Frankly, I am shocked that you cannot see this.

In other words, if a religion does any of those things she listed, then it is a false religion. It was not an all or nothing statement as you are trying to imply.

Tom I apologize for my earlier tone. We are simply looking at the same thing and seeing completely different things. I guess we can leave it at that.

 

[marybee]

Tom I apologize for my earlier tone. We are simply looking at the same thing and seeing completely different things. I guess we can leave it at that.

Face it martino, you are not only the apologist for the ann coulter religion but also the head bishop for it too.

 

[Tom317]

I couldnt come up with a better refutation for your statement than you did so I am just copying it again.

Exactly. I am glad you now agree with me. Glad to have you on board.