Coulter's Anti-Catholic Slur

[martino]

To most of this agree. I firmly believe that Ann implied that the Catholic faith is a false religion.

So by your interpretation of the column would you say that her point was to say that they are both false religions because they both used similar practices that are evidence of a false religion?

 

[jkatpc]

She concludes her article with:

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

The Catholic Church is well known to have held courts of inquisition, along with having sold indulgences–it is no accident both of those “events” are found in her article. She knew exactly what she was writing and that statement basically says “any” religion that holds courts of inquisition are false religions. It is a coy, yet still quite obvious slam. It makes no difference if she was also trying to slam the liberals (which I have no doubt she was doing), she still slammed the Catholic faith and she did not care enough to change the words.

I feel it is a sign of a troubled person who has to constantly attacks others in order to keep their career moving forward.

Maybe this got pointed out down the line (I’m so behind on catching up). The most important word in that sentence is “and.” Logically, each of those descriptives has to be true to satisfy the conditions of a false religion.

 

[Tom317]

So by your interpretation of the column would you say that her point was to say that they are both false religions because they both used similar practices that are evidence of a false religion?

Yes.

 

[Tom317]

Maybe this got pointed out down the line (I’m so behind on catching up). The most important word in that sentence is “and.” Logically, each of those descriptives has to be true to satisfy the conditions of a false religion.

That cannot be true because the “Religion of Liberalism” has NOT held courts of inquistion. I think she simply was blasting any religion that did “any” of those things by saying they are false religions. If a religion uses hate mail it is a false religion. If a religion uses courts of inquisition, it is a false religion. If a religion uses hate, it is a false relgion, etc.

 

[martino]

That cannot be true because the “Religion of Liberalism” has NOT held courts of inquistion. I think she simply was blasting any religion that did “any” of those things by saying they are false religions. If a religion uses hate mail it is a false religion. If a religion uses courts of inquisition, it is a false religion. If a religion uses hate, it is a false relgion, etc.

Whether liberals actually hold courts of inquisition is not important, at least not for the sake of this particular thread. What is important is whether or not she asserted that they do. If she claimed that they do hold courts of inquisition then that would make perfect sense out of that last line that is giving you so much trouble.

I quote from her colomn:

"But for questioning the “science” behind global warming, Lomborg was brought up on charges of “scientific misconduct” by Denmark’s Inquisition Court, called the “Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation.” I take it Denmark’s Ministry of Truth was booked solid that day."

 

[litllulu]

So by your interpretation of the column would you say that her point was to say that they are both false religions because they both used similar practices that are evidence of a false religion?

Martino, you made some great points here, very analytical. Who can refute that? Of course the article was not about Catholics and others who partake in false religions. We know what she thinks about false religions and even strange religions, thus her support for Romney!

 

[litllulu]

That cannot be true because the “Religion of Liberalism” has NOT held courts of inquistion. I think she simply was blasting any religion that did “any” of those things by saying they are false religions. If a religion uses hate mail it is a false religion. If a religion uses courts of inquisition, it is a false religion. If a religion uses hate, it is a false relgion, etc.

Tom, I can’t follow this logic. I think the article made some satirical comments. The point was to sarcastically demonstrate that the liberals indeed are using indulgences.

 

[Tom317]

Martino, you made some great points here, very analytical. Who can refute that? Of course the article was not about Catholics and others who partake in false religions. We know what she thinks about false religions and even strange religions, thus her support for Romney!

I can and have refuted those arguments, which are frankly silly.

 

[Tom317]

Tom, I can’t follow this logic. I think the article made some satirical comments. The point was to sarcastically demonstrate that the liberals indeed are using indulgences.

The point was made that her final statement was structured to mean that a false religion does all of the things she listed. My point with your quote is that it is impossible she meant that because Liberalism does not hold courts of inquisition, but it does use all of the other items on the list Ann provided. Therefore, if a religion does any of the items on her list, it is a false religion.

That is irrefutable.

 

[litllulu]

I can and have refuted those arguments, which are frankly silly.

It was an article about liberals. She use the corrupt practices of indulgences (which the Church has admitted was wrong) to illustrate what the liberals are doing now.

 

[litllulu]

The point was made that her final statement was structured to mean that a false religion does all of the things she listed. My point with your quote is that it is impossible she meant that because Liberalism does not hold courts of inquisition, but it does use all of the other items on the list Ann provided. Therefore, if a religion does any of the items on her list, it is a false religion.

That is irrefutable.

What is false is the people that did use those corrupt practices. Those were not “Catholics” they were schismatic extremists, much like the terrorists vs. the muslim people in general.

 

[Tom317]

What is false is the people that did use those corrupt practices. Those were not “Catholics” they were schismatic extremists, much like the terrorists vs. the muslim people in general.

I assume you are speaking of the indulgences? If so I would, and disagree. On one hand selling indulgences was obviously wrong, yet on the other hand it was of great spiritual benefit to those who received the indulgences. That is what annoys about Ann’s remarks, it shows no concern about the facts.

 

[Tom317]

I mean to write:

I so I would agree, and disagree.

 

[Tom317]

It was an article about liberals. She use the corrupt practices of indulgences (which the Church has admitted was wrong) to illustrate what the liberals are doing now.

I agree that is what she did. However, imo, it was a low blow for her to use something she knows is a sore spot for Catholics, and then she compouned that at the end of article by stating religions who use courts of inquisition are false religions. It seems to me Ann has some issues with the Catholic faith, because she used two Catholic hot issues in one article and used the indulgence issue several times.

 

[litllulu]

I agree that is what she did. However, imo, it was a low blow for her to use something she knows is a sore spot for Catholics, and then she compouned that at the end of article by stating religions who use courts of inquisition are false religions. It seems to me Ann has some issues with the Catholic faith, because she used two Catholic hot issues in one article and used the indulgence issue several times.

I think I see what you are getting at here. However, I just can’t see how a person partaking in corrupt practices such as selling indulgences or inquisitions would be part of a “Holy” or “True” religion. Jesus said
**I am the Way the Truth and the LifeI]Therefore if someone is not in the Truth (ie, selling indulgences) then they are proclaiming FALLICIES! Those are not from God and are therefore are False claims.

 

[Tom317]

I think I see what you are getting at here. However, I just can’t see how a person partaking in corrupt practices such as selling indulgences or inquisitions would be part of a “Holy” or “True” religion. Jesus said
*I am the Way the Truth and the LifeI]

Therefore if someone is not in the Truth (ie, selling indulgences) then they are proclaiming FALLICIES! Those are not from God and are therefore are False claims.*

First, granting indulgences is a very holy action (which remains to this day). The problem happened when the Church began to sell indulgences for the sake of material help in this world (which btw is not quite the crime everyone thinks it is because we are supposed to financially support the Church). Luther jumped on that, though I truly believe he stretch the action into much more then it was.

Second, while the inquisition became quite offensive, once again we need to know the history in order to make a proper juddment. One needs to recall that in many ways the Church WAS the government and the Church was under attack in many different eras.

Ann gave no thought to the real history of either practice, she just used Catholic practices because she knew many people would agree with her. In other words, it is okay in her mind to use sore points of the faith in order to bash the liberals, yet in the process she bashed the liberals and Catholics…her perhaps unintended consequences do not seem to concern her very much, whoch simply means she is an anti-Catholic, or a very cold person. You choose, but either way it is not good for Ann.

 

[Tom317]

I think I see what you are getting at here. However, I just can’t see how a person partaking in corrupt practices such as selling indulgences or inquisitions would be part of a “Holy” or “True” religion. Jesus said
**I am the Way the Truth and the LifeI]**Therefore if someone is not in the Truth (ie, selling indulgences) then they are proclaiming FALLICIES! Those are not from God and are therefore are False claims.

Follow-up.

If Ann had said “people who claim to have faith and do x.” that would have made more sense. Yet, she said religions who do x…

 

[litllulu]

First, granting indulgences is a very holy action (which remains to this day). The problem happened when the Church began to sell indulgences for the sake of material help in this world (which btw is not quite the crime everyone thinks it is because we are supposed to financially support the Church). Luther jumped on that, though I truly believe he stretch the action into much more then it was.

Second, while the inquisition became quite offensive, once again we need to know the history in order to make a proper juddment. One needs to recall that in many ways the Church WAS the government and the Church was under attack in many different eras.

Ann gave no thought to the real history of either practice, she just used Catholic practices because she knew many people would agree with her. In other words, it is okay in her mind to use sore points of the faith in order to bash the liberals, yet in the process she bashed the liberals and Catholics…her perhaps unintended consequences do not seem to concern her very much, whoch simply means she is an anti-Catholic, or a very cold person. You choose, but either way it is not good for Ann.

No one, No one was referring to indulgenses per se. We were referring to the corrupt practice of SELLING indulgences. And who can say that the inquisition has a positive connotation with it? Thats very refutable.

 

[Tom317]

No one, No one was referring to indulgenses per se. We were referring to the corrupt practice of SELLING indulgences. And who can say that the inquisition has a positive connotation with it? Thats very refutable.

I can say that, yet that is not the purpose of this thread.

The point I am making is that there is lot more to the history of indulgences and to the inquisition(s), then the vast majority of Catholics and non-Catholics know. Ann likely has no clue about either, yet she used Catholic sore points to drive home her message. She did not have to use Catholic issues several times in her article, yet she did. That is quite telling imo.

I will say again, I doubt Ann would ever use a trouble spot of her own life as a analogy to the religion of liberalism, yet she thought it was okay to use the faith of over a billion people.

 

[martino]

The point was made that her final statement was structured to mean that a false religion does all of the things she listed. My point with your quote is that it is impossible she meant that because Liberalism does not hold courts of inquisition, but it does use all of the other items on the list Ann provided. Therefore, if a religion does any of the items on her list, it is a false religion.

That is irrefutable.

Its not irrefutable…I already refuted it a few posts before you said that. here it is again…

**Whether liberals actually hold courts of inquisition is not important, at least not for the sake of this particular thread. What is important is whether or not she asserted that they do. If she claimed that they do hold courts of inquisition then that would make perfect sense out of that last line that is giving you so much trouble.

I quote from her colomn:

"But for questioning the “science” behind global warming, Lomborg was brought up on charges of “scientific misconduct” by Denmark’s Inquisition Court, called the “Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation.” I take it Denmark’s Ministry of Truth was booked solid that day."**