Coulter's Anti-Catholic Slur

  • Thread starter Thread starter tclay
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Tom317 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Her point was that liberals DO HOLD COURTS OF INQUISTION…she gave several examples of this very thing in the same article. This is why I assumed you hadnt read it.

She was pitting a false religion against a God based religion. She even says so at the beginning of the column. By her assessment the Church of Liberalism (her most recent book is titled ‘Godless:The church of Liberalism’) is the false religion.

In the column she gave examples of liberals using hatemail, threats and the court system to advance their positions. It is well known that Hollywood has jumped on the Global Warming bandwagon.

Hense her final statement:

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

You see she is a good writer, she states at the beginning what she sets out to prove, then see proves it with factual examples and then sums in all up in her conclusion.
 
Michael_C said:
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?
Click to expand...
Michael, your tone was exactly the same as mine. I got a little rude with Tom and have apologized.

Ok so when is the last time you bought a papal indulgence?

You said you partake in the same practices that she called “corrupt”, and since she was clearly talking about the “selling of papal indulgences”, i am curious to know how you go about doing that in this day and age.
 
martino said:
Her point was that liberals DO HOLD COURTS OF INQUISTION…she gave several examples of this very thing in the same article. This is why I assumed you hadnt read it.

She was pitting a false religion against a God based religion. She even says so at the beginning of the column. By her assessment the Church of Liberalism (her most recent book is titled ‘Godless:The church of Liberalism’) is the false religion.

In the column she gave examples of liberals using hatemail, threats and the court system to advance their positions. It is well known that Hollywood has jumped on the Global Warming bandwagon.

Hense her final statement:

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

You see she is a good writer, she states at the beginning what she sets out to prove, then see proves it with factual examples and then sums in all up in her conclusion.
Click to expand...
Sigh. This is getting boring.

Here is the operative part of her article:

*A few years ago, The New York Times ran an article about the continuing furious debates among physicists about quantum mechanics, which differs from global warming in the sense that it is supported by physical evidence and it doesn’t make you feel good inside to “do something” about quantum mechanics. It is, in short, science.

Though he helped develop the theory of quantum mechanics, Einstein immediately set to work attacking it. MIT cosmologist Max Tegmark called the constant testing and arguing about quantum mechanics “a 75-year war.”

That’s how a real scientific theory operates. That’s even how a real religion operates. Only a false religion needs hate mail, threats, courts of inquisition and Hollywood movies to sustain it. *

While you are correct that she was, in general, blasting global warming liberals by referring to their beliefs as a religion, you are wrong to extend that thought to the entire article. The last few paragraphs shows a clearly different tactic on Ann’s part. She moves into how scientific theories typically operate and that real religion operate in a similar fashion. Then she states that false religions need hate mail, threats, courts of inquisition and Hollywood movies to sustain it. This means that in Ann’s view religions who do use any of those things (hate mail, threats, courts of inquistion, etc.) are false religions.

Now, I will say again, if Ann meant the “religion of liberalism,” then she should have said that. So, either Ann is an anti-Catholic, or she is a terrible writer, or both.
 
I read the article. I think Coulter’s analogy was a poor choice for a person who is so highly educated (She has a law degree from the University of Michigan, and I believe was the editor-in-chief of its Law Review Journal, the top honor a law student can obtain academically besides valedictorian).

I’ve only read a few of her columns, and none of her books, because the quality of her writing and arguments are so poor. It abounds in name-calling, tasteless jokes, almost no logic, ad hominum attacks, and this article is another example of it. Frankly, if I were her (which I’m not), I’d be embarrassed to write such drivel. But, she gets a big fat paycheck and is paid millions for books and thousands as a speaker, so hey, why not?

I think the analogy was in bad taste. I mean, why did she pick the Catholic Church? She could have picked Islam, for example, or even various Protestant denominations. There was no freedom of religion in Queen Elizabeth’s England. Henry VIII, Queen Elizabeth and Thomas Cramer (an Anglican Bishop) all whipped, tortured, and killed Catholics. John Calvin had the Renaissance intellectual Michael Servetus who denied Christ’s Divinity, a heretic, executed in Geneva, Switzerland in 1553. There was no freedom of thought in Calvin’s Switzerland. I know the Calvinists or the Luthern’s killed Zwingli (father of the Anabaptsists) in a religious battle. William Penn I believe was imprisoned because Quakers were whipped and beaten in England, and that why Pennsylvania was founded.

Why don’t I know all the ins and outs of it? Because in American public schools they skip the Middle Ages and start with the Reformation, and tell you the Catholic Church was corrupt because it sold Indulgences and made money off of it, and Luther was good. But as I noted in an above post, Indulgence payments were in sinc with the European legal practices of the time. Of course, this is never mentioned. It was the abuse of the practice, i.e. selling Indulgences for deceased people’s souls that Luther was complaining about.

Of course in the American public schools they skip the Protestant sins. They tell you about Bloody Mary Tudor, and Queen Elizabeth looks like a saint. They tell you that Henry VIII chopped his wives’ heads off, but they don’t mention the Catholic persecutions under Henry, Elizabeth, and Thomas Cromwell.

So my point is that you can find instances of heretic burnings (Christ was crucified for being a heretic) and inquisition type tactics used in all religions, not just Catholicism.

It’s always Catholicism that is given as the example because we live in a Protestant (liberal Protestant) United States. Coulter didn’t pick Islam or Anglicanism, because everyone likes to dump on the Catholic Church in America. It’s the easy target, and accepted as such. If Coulter picked the others there would be such an uproar she would lose her status as pundit.

I think the analogy does not belong in anyone’s writing today because we live in a pluralistic democracy. Catholic soldiers are dying in Iraq, and they don’t need to read this type of rubbish.
 
originally posted by martino
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.
Click to expand...
anytime someone cannot deny the truth of something she says they call her mean and vicious.
Click to expand...
This post is completely uncalled for! :mad:
I did not disparage the people who consider Coulter a “journalist” but you see fit to disparage me personally because I think the woman is nothing more than a nasty headline grabber.
You’d better read the forum rules mr.!

You have just walked into my no further communication zone.
 
martino said:
Michael, your tone was exactly the same as mine. I got a little rude with Tom and have apologized.

Ok so when is the last time you bought a papal indulgence?

You said you partake in the same practices that she called “corrupt”, and since she was clearly talking about the “selling of papal indulgences”, i am curious to know how you go about doing that in this day and age.
Click to expand...
My tone was directed at the public figure Anne Coulter. But since it has been established that you’re her public defender I understand your tone a little better.

Did Anne make it clear that selling indulgences was something that no longer goes on or did she leave that out on purpose.

Everyone may not see things as clearly as you. I think she portrayed the Church in a bad light and for that I’m through with her.
 
Michael_C said:
My tone was directed at the public figure Anne Coulter. But since it has been established that you’re her public defender I understand your tone a little better.

Did Anne make it clear that selling indulgences was something that no longer goes on or did she leave that out on purpose.

Everyone may not see things as clearly as you. I think she portrayed the Church in a bad light and for that I’m through with her.
Click to expand...
Michael, there was no need for her to make that clear because that wasn’t her point and to be honest I think she gives a lot of credit to her reading audience to understand things that are commonly understood. Not only was it not necessary for her to do that but the column would have become unfocused and im sure she would have been criticized for that also.

Let me ask you an honest question. Would it make me an anti-Catholic if i said right now that the there has been corruption in the Church especially in the area of “selling indulgences”. I stand by that remark and I want to know if that makes me anti-Catholic.
 
martino said:
Michael, there was no need for her to make that clear because that wasn’t her point and to be honest I think she gives a lot of credit to her reading audience to understand things that are commonly understood. Not only was it not necessary for her to do that but the column would have become unfocused and im sure she would have been criticized for that also.

Let me ask you an honest question. Would it make me an anti-Catholic if i said right now that the there has been corruption in the Church especially in the area of “selling indulgences”. I stand by that remark and I want to know if that makes me anti-Catholic.
Click to expand...
It would make you uncharitable to the faith if you did not give a full explanation, mainly because people have used the indulgences as a means to attack the faith…something I am sure you are aware of. The fact that Ann used indulgences as an analogy tells us she understands it is a sore point for Catholics, because if it was not a popular pounding point, she would not have used it. Ann knows exactly what she is doing. She knew most readers would agree with the indulgence comments, even if she did not reveal their true nature.

Has their been corruption, yes. Could she, should she, have used a more charitable example, yes. Does her use of the sale of indulgences mean she is anti-Catholic, no, but it does mean she has very little care about what Catholics might think.
 
Hi new here. I came hear because of my peoblems with Ann’s latestest piece.

First I am a Republican and Conservative. I don’t hate Coulter and agree with her often. But I do find this piece unfortunate. I think people are missing the point here.

Put in "Coulte"r and “Indulgences” in google blog search. Or go to political forums. Lies about Indulgences and the Catholic Church are being repeated all over the place. If not lies then lets just say ignorance. I think a fair reading of Ann’s piece was that indulgences were phooey lol. However we can all disagree. I would suggest we answers some of these charges because they are not good for the faith. I ahve done my best to do so but I don’t think some of the misconceptions I am seeing should go unanswered
 
Tom317 said:
It would make you uncharitable to the faith if you did not give a full explanation, mainly because people have used the indulgences as a means to attack the faith…something I am sure you are aware of. The fact that Ann used indulgences as an analogy tells us she understands it is a sore point for Catholics, because if it was not a popular pounding point, she would not have used it. Ann knows exactly what she is doing. She knew most readers would agree with the indulgence comments, even if she did not reveal their true nature.

Has their been corruption, yes. Could she, should she, have used a more charitable example, yes. Does her use of the sale of indulgences mean she is anti-Catholic, no, but it does mean she has very little care about what Catholics might think.
Click to expand...
I’m glad that you would stop short of calling me anti-Catholic, but I wonder why so many felt it Ok to call her anti-Catholic.

I know it’s getting boring and I sound like broken record but the point of the statement was that liberals are “selling indulgences” and calling them “carbon credits”. Her example was right on spot and did a very good job of making the point. Not because it’s a sore spot with Catholics but because it is commonly understood by all that it is a “corrupt practice”. Point being that buying carbon credits is a corrupt practice. There is no othe analogy that makes the point so clearly.

That is exactly what she said. I see no need to go into detail about how indulgences work today.
 
martino said:
Michael, there was no need for her to make that clear because that wasn’t her point and to be honest I think she gives a lot of credit to her reading audience to understand things that are commonly understood. Not only was it not necessary for her to do that but the column would have become unfocused and im sure she would have been criticized for that also.

Let me ask you an honest question. Would it make me an anti-Catholic if i said right now that the there has been corruption in the Church especially in the area of “selling indulgences”. I stand by that remark and I want to know if that makes me anti-Catholic.
Click to expand...
Then we have a difference in perception. My experience…and this is my experience, is that the people I find myself explaining the Catholic faith to the most is catholcs. I think Sean hannity is sharp, I think he doesn’t understand a key issue of the faith, why would the average reader, let alone a catholic reader understand the issue of indulgences (Probably the most misunderstood issue in our faith)?

I do not think you would be anit-catholic. We are on a Catholic forum and it is the issue we are speaking about. If you were a first time poster claiming to be a Bible Christian (Non-catholic) I would ask you to clarify if mean at the time of reformation or currently.
 
lsusportsfan said:
. I think a fair reading of Ann’s piece was that indulgences were phooey lol.
Click to expand...
With all due respect can I ask you to how did she say indulgences were “phooey”, and do you really think she wanted to share her personal feelings on indulgences when she is writing a piece on global warming? What do indulgences have to do with glabal warming?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top