Coulter's Anti-Catholic Slur

[martino]

However, I am not saying though that abuses surrounding Indulgences did not exist.

Ok well I would still like to hear what these abuses may have been!

You made it clear that indulgences were never sold and that it was prefectly fine for the Church to grant indulgences to those who paid a fee.

 

[Tom317]

Of course she didnt have to make reference to indulgences but in this case is was the perfect analogy. If her intention is to point out the corrupt practice of paying for “carbon offsets” that serve to clear the liberal of all guilt associated with their own flagrant energy consumption, and in this case over consumption, then it would have been neglectful for her not to reference the Church. We are to learn from our mistakes and its important to point out the mistakes of the past when we see the same mistakes making a come-back. That is why Vietnam is always brought up in a discussion about Iraq. That is why slavery is always brought up in a debate on abortion.

These points you are making is what frustrates me:

First, she is not showing she understands that in many cases the indulgences were received by the buyer of indulgences and that was a very, very good thing for them (if they had a properly disposed intention).

Second: Liberals who buy offsets get no real benefit outside of feeling better, which is not true for many of those people who received great spiritual benefit when they received a valid indulgence.

Third: since liberalism is NOT an actual religion, and the Catholic faith is One True Religion, there can be no real comparisions between them (it is like comparing cars to birds). You did site one good example: Vietnam was a war, Iraq is a war, and there are valid comparison points between them; however, one can not properly compare a non-religion to the One True Religion. There also is not such thing as a “perfect” anything other then God.

Now, back to my question to you: Why do you defend her with such passion?

 

[jman507]

These points you are making is what frustrates me:

First, she is not showing she understands that in many cases the indulgences were received by the buyer of indulgences and that was a very, very good thing for them (if they had a properly disposed intention).

Second: Liberals who buy offsets get no real benefit outside of feeling better, which is not true for many of those people who received great spiritual benefit when they received a valid indulgence.

Third: since liberalism is NOT an actual religion, and the Catholic faith is One True Religion, there can be no real comparisions between them (it is like comparing cars to birds). You did site one good example: Vietnam was a war, Iraq is a war, and there are valid comparison points between them; however, one can not properly compare a non-religion to the One True Religion. There also is not such thing as a “perfect” anything other then God.

Now, back to my question to you: Why do you defend her with such passion?

I’ll shoot, why not.

First point, given, I think she might have strayed when she called the selling of indulgence corrept, when all she needed to do was to compare it to money could be applied to indulgences, especially back in the middle ages. That she actually understands exactly what an indulgence is, is not really needed for her point.

Second point, while someone who buys a carbon-offset might get a spiritual benefit, but if their intention was to actually offset the carbon, due to global warming, it would do them well to actually know if a) the carbon dioxide is actually being offset and b) it is actually going to be significant to effect global warming.

Third point, it doesn’t matter to her theory that liberalism is a ‘nonreligion.’ As the saying goes, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it is a duck. On one hand it may not be a duck, on the other hand it can be a duck, it matters on how you do the classification. You cannot properly compare any religion, but things can take the place and act like a religion.

If you’d like to ask me why I defend Coulter, what can I say I’m a bit biased. I find with every rant she goes on, I need to take it half in jest and half seriously. She’ll give a provocative and challenging message in a provocative and challenging way. Granted I have to wonder if that’s the best way to give out the message, but that always seems to intriguing me.

 

[Tom317]

I’ll shoot, why not.

First point, given, I think she might have strayed when she called the selling of indulgence corrept, when all she needed to do was to compare it to money could be applied to indulgences, especially back in the middle ages. That she actually understands exactly what an indulgence is, is not really needed for her point.

Second point, while someone who buys a carbon-offset might get a spiritual benefit, but if their intention was to actually offset the carbon, due to global warming, it would do them well to actually know if a) the carbon dioxide is actually being offset and b) it is actually going to be significant to effect global warming.

Third point, it doesn’t matter to her theory that liberalism is a ‘nonreligion.’ As the saying goes, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it is a duck. On one hand it may not be a duck, on the other hand it can be a duck, it matters on how you do the classification. You cannot properly compare any religion, but things can take the place and act like a religion.

If you’d like to ask me why I defend Coulter, what can I say I’m a bit biased. I find with every rant she goes on, I need to take it half in jest and half seriously. She’ll give a provocative and challenging message in a provocative and challenging way. Granted I have to wonder if that’s the best way to give out the message, but that always seems to intriguing me.

On your third point response:

Liberalism is NOT a religion and no amount sarcasism will it one. Therefore, since the Catholic faith is the one true religion of God, and since liberalism is NOT a religion on any level, it is a false comparision. Ann wrecks her own case by making a false analogy. Beyond that, her tactics are anti-God, in that she consistently uses abusive attacks to try to get her point across and she does that ONLY to make money, no other reason other then perhaps a runaway ego.

IMO, there is no defense for someone that is so intentionally abusive.

 

[Orionthehunter]

On your third point response:

Liberalism is NOT a religion and no amount sarcasism will it one. Therefore, since the Catholic faith is the one true religion of God, and since liberalism is NOT a religion on any level, it is a false comparision. Ann wrecks her own case by making a false analogy. Beyond that, her tactics are anti-God, in that she consistently uses abusive attacks to try to get her point across and she does that ONLY to make money, no other reason other then perhaps a runaway ego.

IMO, there is no defense for someone that is so intentionally abusive.

Debate and communication depend upon a universality of what words mean in context. Without it there is no intelligent sharing of ideas. Religion is by definition “a specific system of belief and worship” which is the prism by which they see the entire world. The word is neutral regarding “legitimacy.” Satanism and Catholicism are both religions.

There are secular liberals who assert a level of universality to their beliefs to make it a religion, there people who hold the pursuit of money and wealth in such high esteem as to make it a religion, and there are people who even hold their local sports team in such high regard for it to be a religion.

 

[Tom317]

Debate and communication depend upon a universality of what words mean in context. Without it there is no intelligent sharing of ideas. Religion is by definition “a specific system of belief and worship” which is the prism by which they see the entire world. The word is neutral regarding “legitimacy.” Satanism and Catholicism are both religions.

There are secular liberals who assert a level of universality to their beliefs to make it a religion, there people who hold the pursuit of money and wealth in such high esteem as to make it a religion, and there are people who even hold their local sports team in such high regard for it to be a religion.

That is complete and utter nonsense. Liberalism is NOT a religion, it is a political ideology, not a religion and I think all liberals would strongly reject the notion that they are religious about their politcal opinions. They have strong opinions about the politics, and while they are misguided (imo), it does not make them religious in their political opinions.

Ann was merely doing her normal act by being abusive. As I said, she shows no sign of being a person of faith, but she shows many signs of being a person who loves money.

No amount of hate from the right will cause liberalism to become a religion. Ann’s argument failed as soon as she compared the political ideology of liberalism to the One True Catholic faith, they are not comparable on any level.

 

[Tom317]

Debate and communication depend upon a universality of what words mean in context. Without it there is no intelligent sharing of ideas. Religion is by definition “a specific system of belief and worship” which is the prism by which they see the entire world. The word is neutral regarding “legitimacy.” Satanism and Catholicism are both religions.

There are secular liberals who assert a level of universality to their beliefs to make it a religion, there people who hold the pursuit of money and wealth in such high esteem as to make it a religion, and there are people who even hold their local sports team in such high regard for it to be a religion.

BTW, satanism, sadly, is a religion. Liberalism is not.

 

[Orionthehunter]

That is complete and utter nonsense. Liberalism is NOT a religion, it is a political ideology, not a religion and I think all liberals would strongly reject the notion that they are religious about their politcal opinions. They have strong opinions about the politics, and while they are misguided (imo), it does not make them religious in their political opinions.

Ann was merely doing her normal act by being abusive. As I said, she shows no sign of being a person of faith, but she shows many signs of being a person who loves money.

No amount of hate from the right will cause liberalism to become a religion. Ann’s argument failed as soon as she compared the political ideology of liberalism to the One True Catholic faith, they are not comparable on any level.

Christ said" Where one’s heart is, so is their God." This is a simple definition of religion. There are liberals and conservatives who place so much of their heart and mind in their political views that it has become their god.

 

[rlg94086]

BTW, satanism, sadly, is a religion. Liberalism is not.

I looked up “religion” on Webster, as I am apt to do when such controversies arise, and here are the definitions. Please note definition number 4, which I have bolded - sounds like liberalism to me :

Main Entry: re·li·gion webster.com/images/audio.gif
Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Anglo-French religiun, Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back – more at RELY
1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> **b **(1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : ***a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith ***

 

[martino]

Now, back to my question to you: Why do you defend her with such passion?

The main reason I defend her is because I think she is right and I personally enjoy her style. Also, I believe she does not get a fair shake in the media (including this board). The very same media that unfairly demonizes the Church do the same thing to her. I defend them both, as I would anyone else who I thought was not being represented fairly. I don’t care whether or not someone likes her, but if they say something that is not true then I will defend her.

I don’t believe she said anything untrue about the Church but I do think people on this site have said things that were untrue about her. I find it ironic that the people who are so sensitive about being misrepresented by the media are so quick to misrepresent someone else.

Plus its a good debate and I am always up for that.

 

[Tom317]

Christ said" Where one’s heart is, so is their God." This is a simple definition of religion. There are liberals and conservatives who place so much of their heart and mind in their political views that it has become their god.

I think that is nonsense.

 

[Tom317]

I looked up “religion” on Webster, as I am apt to do when such controversies arise, and here are the definitions. Please note definition number 4, which I have bolded - sounds like liberalism to me :

Main Entry: re·li·gion webster.com/images/audio.gif
Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Anglo-French religiun, Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back – more at RELY
1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> **b **(1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : ***a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith ***

Thank you for posting that. You have helped my argument by proving that liberals hold none of those descriptions. Politial opinion is not belief.

 

[Tom317]

The main reason I defend her is because I think she is right and I personally enjoy her style. Also, I believe she does not get a fair shake in the media (including this board). The very same media that unfairly demonizes the Church do the same thing to her. I defend them both, as I would anyone else who I thought was not being represented fairly. I don’t care whether or not someone likes her, but if they say something that is not true then I will defend her.

I don’t believe she said anything untrue about the Church but I do think people on this site have said things that were untrue about her. I find it ironic that the people who are so sensitive about being misrepresented by the media are so quick to misrepresent someone else.

Plus its a good debate and I am always up for that.

You do not have a problem with her abusive style, her attacks and name calling? You don’t think there is a better and far, far more mature way to get a point across?

 

[rlg94086]

Thank you for posting that. You have helped my argument by proving that liberals hold none of those descriptions. Politial opinion is not belief.

Now, you are just being ridiculous…

Main Entry: opin·ion [webster.com/images/audio.gif](javascriptopWin(’/cgi-bin/audio.pl?opinio01.wav=opinion’))
Pronunciation: &-'pin-y&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin opinion-, opinio, from opinari
1 a : a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter b : APPROVAL, ESTEEM
2 a : **belief **stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge b : a generally held view
3 a : a formal expression of judgment or advice by an expert b : the formal expression (as by a judge, court, or referee) of the legal reasons and principles upon which a legal decision is based

Main Entry: be·lief [webster.com/images/audio.gif](javascriptopWin(’/cgi-bin/audio.pl?belief01.wav=belief’))
Pronunciation: b&-'lEf
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English beleave, probably alteration of Old English gelEafa, from ge-, associative prefix + lEafa; akin to Old English lyfan – more at BELIEVE
1 : a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing
2 : something believed; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group
3 **: conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence.
**

 

[Tom317]

Now, you are just being ridiculous…

Main Entry: opin·ion [webster.com/images/audio.gif](javascriptopWin(’/cgi-bin/audio.pl?opinio01.wav=opinion’))
Pronunciation: &-'pin-y&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin opinion-, opinio, from opinari
1 a : a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter b : APPROVAL, ESTEEM
2 a : **belief **stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge b : a generally held view
3 a : a formal expression of judgment or advice by an expert b : the formal expression (as by a judge, court, or referee) of the legal reasons and principles upon which a legal decision is based

Main Entry: be·lief [webster.com/images/audio.gif](javascriptopWin(’/cgi-bin/audio.pl?belief01.wav=belief’))
Pronunciation: b&-'lEf
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English beleave, probably alteration of Old English gelEafa, from ge-, associative prefix + lEafa; akin to Old English lyfan – more at BELIEVE
1 : a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing
2 : something believed; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group
3 **: conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence.
**

I think it is ridiculous to say liberalism is a religion…not hardly even worth a response.

I suppose next people will start calling the dems and repubs members of religions.

 

[martino]

You do not have a problem with her abusive style, her attacks and name calling? You don’t think there is a better and far, far more mature way to get a point across?

I just see it differently than you do i guess. She doesnt come across as abusive to me. She pokes fun at people and things certainly but I really dont think she is mean or vicious like so many say. To me her humor and sarcasm keep her colums light and fun while making her points on serious issues.

I see why others do not like her style though. That part of it is just a matter of opinion i guess.

 

[rlg94086]

Tom317,

I think you are a little hung up on the use of the term “religion,” so feel free to drop the issue if you like.

In common usage, you can say “Joe is so involved in fly fishing, it has become his religion.” It just means he faithfully follows the tenets of fly fishing.

To say that someone’s liberal beliefs (environmentalism, women’s rights, animal rights, etc.) has become a religion, is just to say it is the main focus of their lives. They are as faithful to their political beliefs as a devout monk is to God.

God bless,

Robert

 

[Tom317]

I just see it differently than you do i guess. She doesnt come across as abusive to me. She pokes fun at people and things certainly but I really dont think she is mean or vicious like so many say. To me her humor and sarcasm keep her colums light and fun while making her points on serious issues.

I see why others do not like her style though. That part of it is just a matter of opinion i guess.

Yes, I find her be like a coarse piece of sandpaper being driven across my skin. I also think she does that to many, many people, which causes her message (which is often a good one) to be lost to nearly everyone but her own choir of people who love her.

In the end, it simply serves no productive purpose to insult and attack people, it literally never produces fruit with those you wish to reach. That is why I am convinced she does all of that for money, and not for any real impact on the populace.

 

[martino]

Yes, I find her be like a coarse piece of sandpaper being driven across my skin. I also think she does that to many, many people, which causes her message (which is often a good one) to be lost to nearly everyone but her own choir of people who love her.

In the end, it simply serves no productive purpose to insult and attack people, it literally never produces fruit with those you wish to reach. That is why I am convinced she does all of that for money, and not for any real impact on the populace.

Tom, if she was really only in this for the money dont you think she would stop making everyone feel like they have a coarse piece of sandpaper driving across their back? If she could reach more people with her message she would make more money.

 

[Tom317]

Tom, if she was really only in this for the money dont you think she would stop making everyone feel like they have a coarse piece of sandpaper driving across their back? If she could reach more people with her message she would make more money.

No. I think the only way she would sell her stuff is by being so abusive. She attracts a certain base, yet the rest can’t stand her style. She is getting quite rich off her abusive style.