I believe she has been called “The Human Uzi”.
She may be the best ironist of our times. 
Love her. Hate her. She can write.
Study and learn.
Ann Coulter
Bonfire of the InsanitiesIn response to Gen David Petraeus’ denunciation of Florida pastor Terry Jones’ right to engage in a symbolic protest of the 9/11 attacks by burning copies of the Quran this Sept. 11, President Obama said: “Let me be clear: As a citizen, and as president, I believe that members of the Dove World Outreach Center have the same right to freedom of speech and religion as anyone else in this country.”
Gov. Charlie Crist of Florida lauded Obama’s remarks, saying America is “a place where you’re supposed to be able to practice your religion without the government telling you you can’t.”
New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg called Obama’s words a “clarion defense of the freedom of religion” — and also claimed that he had recently run into a filthy jihadist who actually supported the Quran-burning!
Keith Olbermann read the poem “First they came …” on air in defense of the Quran-burners, nearly bringing himself to tears at his own profundity.
No wait, my mistake. This is what liberals said about the ground zero mosque only five minutes ago when they were posing as First Amendment absolutists. Suddenly, they’ve developed amnesia when it comes to the free-speech right to burn a Quran.
Weirdly, conservatives who opposed building the mosque at ground zero are also against the Quran burning. (Except in my case. It turns out I’m for it, but mostly because burning Qurans will contribute to global warming.)
Liberals couldn’t care less about the First Amendment. To the contrary, censoring speech and religion is the left’s specialty! (Any religion other than Islam.)
They promote speech codes, hate crimes, free speech zones (known as “America” off college campuses), and go around the country yanking every reference to God from the public square via endless lawsuits by the ACLU.
Whenever you see a liberal choking up over our precious constitutional rights, you can be sure we’re talking about the rights of Muslims at ground zero, “God Hates Fags” funeral protesters, strippers, The New York Times publishing classified documents, pornographers, child molesters, murderers, traitors, saboteurs, terrorists, flag-burners (but not Quran-burners!) or women living on National Endowment of the Arts grants by stuffing yams into their orifices on stage.
Speaking of lying dwarfs, last week on “The Daily Show” Bloomberg claimed he was having a hamburger with his “girlfriend” when a man came up to him and said of the ground zero mosque: “I just got back from two tours fighting overseas for America. This is what we were all fighting for. You go and keep at it.”
We’re fighting for the right of Muslims to build mosques at ground zero? I thought we were trying to keep Muslims AWAY from our skyscrapers. (What an embarrassing misunderstanding.) PLEASE PULL THE TROOPS OUT IMMEDIATELY.
But back to the main issue: Was Bloomberg having a $150 Burger Double Truffle at DB Bistro Moderne or a more sensible $30 burger [It is New York, after all…] at the 21 Club when he bumped into his imaginary veteran? With the pint-sized mayor shrieking at the sight of a saltshaker, I assume he wasn’t having a Hardee’s No. 4 Combo Meal.
Adding an element of realism to his little vignette, Bloomberg said: “I got a hamburger and a pickle and a potato chip or something.”
A potato chip? Translation: “I don’t know what I was eating, because I’m making this whole story up – I wouldn’t be caught dead eating ‘a potato chip’ or any other picaresque garnish favored by the peasants.” At least Bloomberg didn’t claim the man who walked up to him took credit for setting the Times Square bomb because he was a tea partier upset about ObamaCare – as Sherlock Bloomberg had so presciently speculated at the time.
Gen. Petraeus objected to the Quran-burning protest on the grounds that it could be used by radical jihadists to recruit Muslims to attack Americans.
This is what liberals say whenever we do anything displeasing to the enemy – invade Iraq, hold captured terrorists in Guantanamo, interrogate captured jihadists or publish Muhammad cartoons. Is there a website somewhere listing everything that encourages terrorist recruiting?
If the general’s main objective is to hamper jihadist recruiting, may I respectfully suggest unconditional surrender? Because on his theory, you know what would really kill the terrorists’ recruiting ability? If we adopted Sharia law!
But wait – weren’t we assured by Fire Island’s head of national security, Andrew Sullivan, that if America elected a “brown-skinned man whose father was an African, who grew up in Indonesia and Hawaii, who attended a majority-Muslim school as a boy,” the terrorists would look like a bunch of lunkheads and be unable to recruit?
It didn’t work out that way. There have been more terrorist attacks on U.S. soil by these allegedly calmed Muslims in Obama’s first 18 months in office than in the six years under Bush after he invaded Iraq.
Also, as I recall, there was no Guantanamo, no Afghanistan war and no Iraq war on Sept. 10, 2001. And yet, somehow, Osama bin Ladin had no trouble recruiting back then. Can we retire the “it will help them recruit” argument yet?
[NB] The reason not to burn Qurans is that it’s unkind – not to jihadists, but to Muslims who mean us no harm. The same goes for building a mosque at ground zero – in both cases, it’s not a question of anyone’s “rights,” it’s just a nasty thing to do.
Holy cow!
Not one of these 900 words was wasted as she flayed the objects of her ire.
Loading ...
Pastor Jones was interviewed at this site forwarded to me and it is full of irony.
http://tinyurl.com/ShariaLawBadForUSA
Irony seems to have fallen on bad times.
To be totally fair to Mayor Bloomberg, there are delis and sandwich shops in the world that don’t believe in fries but do believe in potato chips. The kind of place you eat on the street, my experience is that they just hand you a bag of chips or Doritos to carry with you.
That said, even if one guy did come up and say that, and even if said guy were in the military, one swallow doesn’t make a summer. If the guy had spoken loud enough, probably most of the other New Yorkers would have come up and disagreed, vigorously waving the bloody shirt (as they are justified in doing).
I am not her biggest fan but this was a GREAT piece. Especially her point about us having done nothing on September 10th to make them mad. BTW I think burning those Qurans is a terrible idea; I don’t see the point of it, other than to inflame people. I can’t really believe this has even become a story. If the “pastor” really was opposed to Islam he could easily burn as many Qurans as he wants in his own privacy; he clearly wanted to draw attention to himself, and likewise has made all “christians” seem like lunatics. I wouldn’t be at all surprised to learn about Muslims burning bibles or effigies of the Holy Father; but heaven forbid any liberals denounce that.
I do delight in Ann’s irony, as well as in her very quick retorts when in face to face with the enemy.
I’d love to know what liberals imagine their paradise will be like when their religion of peace is in power and begins stoning all the homosexuals and adulterers. Oh, wait, that may be the solution to their fear of overpopulation!
I used to live in Gainesville, and one thing not mentioned is that not too far away from this church is something called the “Gainesville Islamic Dawa Center.” Dawa means proselytizing or conversion. The Muslim population of the university also gets all sorts of support from the University, and they always put up banners in the street celebrating Muslim holidays. The Muslims actively proselytize and distribute Korans all over the university and the city.
So although I think this church’s idea is not a good one, for many reasons, it isn’t quite as unprovoked as the press makes it sound and actually is a response to Muslim proselytizing.
I think the Koran burning is a bad idea, however, because now all the Muslims and Muslim supporters are using it to gain sympathy for Muslims and make it look as if they are being threatened by Christians. The church is hardly representative of Christians – it is a very extreme independent fundamentalist church whose pastor and his wife run a used-furniture e-bay business out of the church. I should note that they have done other somewhat off-the-wall things like this before, including marching around waving signs protesting the “homo mayor,” so it’s not like they reserve their spleen for Muslims. However, while I agree that they have the right to do this, I also agree with Ann Coulter that it’s a nasty, unkind thing to do. It’s unfortunate that this flake is giving Muslims an excuse to portray themselves as victims, and I think it’s going to backfire and will actually result in more restrictions (perhaps in the form of hate-crimes laws) on our freedom to say things critical of Islam.
I don’t buy the idea that Muslims don’t mean us harm. If Islam means harm to all those who refuse to submit, then how can its followers escape having the same view? Islam is not a peaceful religion. The documents and theology that undergird the Islamic religion put human beings into the role of servitude and the whims of its various leaders translate into bloodshed and death. In my opinion kindness should not be the major reason to leave the Koran unburned but the fact that we don’t want to fuel another Islamic fire. Should the federal government become involved in this decision? No. It’s not their place to. But no peaceful religion–Christianity for instance–should resort to burning the holy book of another religion. While history has shown that the ideas contained within various books can result in death it’s too late to burn those books because the ideology contained therein is already circulating in so many minds.
ALL: I am going to delete some comments. I will also strongly consider locking you out if you simply spew.
Don’t spew.
Do some self-editing and think thrice before posting under this entry.
And if you are not at least as smart as Ann Coulter, don’t try to imitate her under this entry.
Osama Bin Laden, and others of his ilk, are the most faithful of all Muslims because they actualise God’s Commands as recorded in the Koran; and, in doing so, they are following, as closely as possible, the example set by the “perfect man,” Muhammed.
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/023-violence.htm
And then there are the innumerable instances of such violent and deadly actions committed by “the perfect man,” Mohammed himself, as recorded in the Hadiths and Siras (Biographies of Muhammed).
I mean, over 800 Jews were beheaded by Muhammed long before America even existed.
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Muhammad/myths-mu-qurayza.htm
One has to become an autodidact when it comes to Muhammedism because the self-censoring lies in the West about Islam is deadly. Literally.
mea culpa,
Father,
here’s my idea….
http://kneelingcatholic.blogspot.com/2010/09/stop-dont-burn-koran-burn-your-old.html
k.c.
“because it’s a nasty thing to do”…Thanks Ann. That is exactly what I tried to tell my brother and anyone else who would listen! It just aint right!
Mosque building or koran burning!
bjr
She’s pithy and incisive. She’s the liberals worst nightmare.
Miss Coulter really can write but her last paragraph concedes too much.
I think Mr. Fleming has an interesting, and correct, take that pierces the myth of religious freedom
http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/2010/09/03/tyranny-over-religion/
Fr. Z:
While you’re on the topic of Islam and freedom of speech. Look at how open to free speech Islam has been in Turkey. The situation is so dire for Christianity that there are fears that we may currently be looking at the last Patriarch of Constantinople. And you know the situation must be bad when CNN is the one running the story:
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/08/26/wus.patriarch/index.html#fbid=6smLYWglhWh&wom=true
Way to go, Ann Coulter!
And that’s all I gonna say…..
And last night on TV Imam Rauf declared that if the GZ mosque is moved, there will almost certainly be waves of violence across the muslim world. Warning: rhetorical question to follow–are we now, as a nation, going to be held hostage to threats of violence either here or inn other countries? This is very disturbing, and we’ve seen little thoughtful leadership from the WH, the State Dept., Gen Petraeus and even many conservative leaders……very very disturbing.
The burger menu runs ‘twixt $150 and $30?! The only sensible response to such a city is to regain one’s wits, reject the insanity of the demand, and go somewhere else. Unless the thirty dollar burger is served on a twenty dollar note, you’re being fleeced.
Learn? What? How to inflame rather than enlighten? As usual, Ms. Coulter misses (or perhaps chooses to ignore) the fine points of the situation in order to pick a fight.
Perhaps I’ve missed something, but I don’t recall any of the named liberals — or any others, for that matter — denying the pastor in Florida has a right to burn the Qurans. Their point is that it’s not always a good idea to exercise our rights. With rights come responsibilities: among them, to consider the impact of our actions _before_ we act (which, in this case, includes announcing our plans in the press) and for the outcome of our actions.
What actual good results from burning the Qurans? I can’t think of any. On the other hand, I can think of a number of ways it can lead to harm. Would Christ advise us to incite our enemies for no good reason, just because we have a right to?
Ann Coulter is nasty, and seems to be proud as the devil. She should not be a role model for any Christian. I’m really sad to see this here, but it startles me enough to make me think about the way some of the other writing here is similar in tone to hers. Maybe I don’t really want to read this blog.
@ walker217 – “And last night on TV Imam Rauf declared that if the GZ mosque is moved, there will almost certainly be waves of violence across the muslim world.”
Interesting. This tells me there is more to this than he’s letting on and that his motives are not as noble as he (and others) are claiming.
Why no outcry over this, anything for the fear of violence
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/05/20/us.military.bibles.burned/
Military burns unsolicited Bibles sent to Afghanistan
Being a History major, maybe I just remember a little more; being a Catholic, maybe I studied Catholic Spain in History a little more…I dunno. But it sure seems to me that EVERYONE has forgotten their history, and how the Moslems almost conquered Europe, except for a few strongholds which fought until they won…in 1492. Yes, it was only after they defeated the Moslems that Spain could start spending money on other things, like exploration.
Please stop buying the idea that Islam is a peaceful religion, just because your next-door neighbor who is Moslem is a peaceful person.
I liked the article very much. Could we get some important people to read it and pay attention?
People need to realize that the Constitution is being taken apart little by little, only to be used by liberals when convenient.
now threats of violence if the Cordoba mosque is not built, this where knuckling under leads, do as we say or we riot, very slippery slope indeed
—————————–
Ground Zero Victory Mosque Imam Issues Threat: If You Don’t Build It “They Will Attack” (Video)
Posted by Jim Hoft on Thursday, September 9, 2010, 7:51 AM
Ground Zero Victory Mosque Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf issued a threat to America in his interview with CNN this week.
The radical imam warned that if America did not get down on its knees and allow the victory mosque to be built on the bones of dead Americans that…
“They will attack.”
Family Security Matters reported on this CNN interview:
Imam Rauf threatens America:
“If this is not handled correctly, this crisis could become much bigger than the Danish cartoon crisis, which resulted in attacks on Danish embassies in various parts of the Muslim world…. If we don’t handle this crisis correctly it could become something which could really become very, very, very dangerous indeed.”
@The Egyptian (Military burns unsolicited Bibles sent to Afghanistan)
While we can certainly debate how the U.S. military handled the situation with the unsolicted Bibles, the situation was not at all comparable to that in Florida. First, we were the ones burning the Bibles, not the Afghans. Second, those burning them did not publicize the event with the intent of inciting their opponents.
@kat – “People need to realize that the Constitution is being taken apart little by little, only to be used by liberals when convenient.”
While your statement is true in general, what does it have to do with this specific situation? Can you cite one example where anyone attempted to deny the pastor in Florida has a right to burn the Qurans, as opposed to pointing out that such an act would be irresponsible? As I recall, Gen. Petraeus made this distinction quite clear.
Exactly Jerry we look at it rationally, if they had burned unauthorized Korans for what ever reason even if contaminated with some disease, there would be a riot, look at the reaction over supposedly flushing a Koran, which was impossible the way it was described in the first place, (unless maybe it was one really powerful flush)total nutty, These people need to grow up, on both sides
I must agree, she is perhaps the most articulate mouthpiece out there for extreme right-wing zenophobia. I’d almost want to become a bigot too, she makes it sound so attractive.
(Oh, yeah, I guess that puts me in the “hate” camp.)
frjim4321 writes that Coulter “is perhaps the most articulate mouthpiece out there for extreme right-wing zenophobia. I’d almost want to become a bigot too, she makes it sound so attractive.”
Yeah. I bet she knows how to spell xenophobia, though.
Funny thing about condescension: it works best when you don’t make yourself look dumb in the same breath. (Which, turnabout being fair play, makes this all the more pertinent and funny: http://twitpic.com/2mi8uf.)
Perhaps I’m wrong: Perhaps Fr. Jim worries that Coulter preaches fear of Zen.
frjim4321, don’t come to a gun fight with a toy gun. It’s embarrassing.
Jerry: I’m pretty sure that if you were to ask the group that wants to burn the Koran whether they are also disturbed over the sudden erosion of our Constitutional rights or not that they would respond with a resounding “Yes!”. The Muslim presence in America gives us reason to be concerned–especially during a time where we are beginning to lose our Constitutional rights.
It is a little vexing that right wing politics of the most dubious type seem to be championed here – automatically blended into a traditionist/right wing poli smoothie.. I just don’t like the blend of flavors.
Do know that I like a lot of Ann Coulter’s takes on many subjects; but let’s not praise this piece too highly. We are standing in murky waters here, and no particular take is so cut and dried laudable.. Nuance is needed. Whatever happened to the idea of discretion being the better part of valor?
These “mouthpieces of the right,” especially those with multi book deals, are entertainers mostly, and should be understood as such.
To Simon Dodd and others who speak against New York>
I would rather have a city that serves $30. hamburgers with the level of culture and libraries and business (and Eataly) of New York than any provincial capital that offers $10 burgers with bleak, boarded-up, deserted downtowns.
To commentators on koran buring day>
at some point in this discussion, especially in a blog with Catholic connections, yesterday’s communique from the Holy See’s Pontifical Council for Inter-Religious Dialogue should mentioned– its great concern about Koran Buring Day and the outrageous and grace gestures. While I enjoy watching Ann Coulter and her leather mini-skirts and piercing eyes, and hearing her phenom english and perfect repartee, something in me wishes the topic here started with the department of our own Holy See (of course, I know it’s not the pope speaking…I know the Holy See machinations…and I know that their linguistic proficiency pales beside Coulter…but let’s give them a nod nevertheless).
Our Lord has told us to pray for our enemies. We do not have the ability to communicate effectively with Muslims, because of the theological gulf between our world views. Only God knows the inner workings of their hearts and our hearts, and only He can interpret between hearts. Without His help, attempted discourse with Muslims is like tiptoeing through a mine field. No, we should not throw gasoline on the fires of the hatred so many already have for us, by burning their holy book. That’s stupid, and it’s just plain wrong.
Day after day after day, the dead bodies of Christians pile-up as a result of the actions of Muslims who most closely adhere to the Koran and the Media is mute.
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
But let some unknown Pastor of some odd sub-100 member christian community decide to torch a Koran and even the Vatican weighs in.
Sheesh…
And I would rather have a city that sleeps at night and where a perfectly good burger will run $5 tops than be constantly fleeced while drowning in a blinding, deafening city that never sleeps and never, ever, shuts up, and where an apartment the size of my bathroom can barely be rented for the cost of a city block in a “provincial capital.” The one thing that ticks me off about big city folks is that they think parochialism is something that only affects people who live in small towns. “New York, the greatest city in the world”? Not even close.
So where exactly does Andres Serrano’s “Piss Christ” figure in this equation?
I guess the “be nice” & “don’t blashpheme” rules only apply in Muslims.
A precedent is being set. The POTUS has chimed in (“completely contrary to our values as Americans”). Pundits and policy makers have made it clear that while a free speech right exists, decorum and respect must prevail.
Next month the second annual Blasphemy Day will be held. Last year, a participant drove a nail through a (claimed) consecrated host, among other disgusting featured acts.
An understanding must be regained that religious respect is universal and not just a politically correct notion applicable only to non-Christians.
Rob, it depends whether the crucifix Serrano used was blessed as a sacramental. If it was only a regular-issue crucifix, limiting the blasphemy to symbolism, see this.
She does get under liberal skin, doesn’t she.
When I first heard about this infamy, I was so irate that I sent a letter to the pastor of the church, which I reproduce below:
Dear Pastor Jones,
I am very disturbed to learn that you intend to burn a Coran. While I confess that at one time I had as little respect for the Coran as a holy book as you do, I have come to see that my attitude was based on ignorance.
Although we are of different religions (I am a Roman Catholic), I hope that the example set by our late Holy Father, John Paul II, the Great, who, God willing, will soon be canonized a saint, may make an impression on you as it did on me. Until the Holy Father reverenced the Coran with a papal kiss, I had always thought the book to be a tissue of lies and blasphemies.
But the Pope’s magnanimous gesture, along with the decrees of our Church’s Second Vatican Council, made me realize that this book contains elements of the Truth revealed by God Himself. Not the whole Truth, to be sure, which the Catholic Church alone teaches, but significant elements nonetheless.
For example, did you know that the Incarnation is correctly described in the Coran? And the Virgin Birth? I realize that in your sect, you though a Christian of sorts, do not accept these dogmas, Moslems do. In fact, the Coran reveres the Virgin Mary as the greatest of God’s creatures. This is a lesson which you ought to take to heart or you will never see the mortal sin of the heresies in which you now labor.
Admittedly, there is an unfortunate tinge of Docetism in the narrative of the Passion and Death of our Beloved Lord, but such a heresy is no worse than many of those held by contemporary Christians, yourself included.
While Catholics do not accept the Coran as divinely revealed, it can be considered as a form of private revelation, though defective. And it certainly it is far superior than some private revelations such as Medjugorje.
In conclusion, I would ask that you refrain from burning the Coran, and instead meditate upon your own heresies. The redwood trunk in your own eye socket is bigger than the splinter in Mohammed’s (PBUH).
Yours in our Lord and Savior,
Roland
Fr. Z, she does indeed inflame liberals. When on camera with them, she lands blow after blow, and is unscathed. Her apparent pride — so often noted by her detractors — seems to be the honest result of her well reasoned and fully supported positions. More often than not, the most vocal of her detractors number among those who have failed to win even one round against her.
Irony, logic, and fully developed reasoning are a devastating set of armaments.
The reaction of the media and our ‘intelligentsia’ to the desecration of the Blessed Sacrament by P.Z. Myers not so long ago, was sniggering dismissal of the outrage voiced by Catholics. After all, it’s just a cracker, right? Those crazy Catholics are getting upset over nothing. Myers was never reprimanded or disciplined by his University (of Minnesota) and was held up as a hero by many of our liberal elites.
Now suddenly, they’re deeply concerned that religious believers might be offended by someone’s stupid insensitive stunt? Mayors, Governors, a four-star General, and even the President of the United States find it so upsetting they need to speak out against it?
Cognitive Dissonance is an amazing thing, it it doesn’t make your head explode.
“To Simon Dodd and others who speak against New York>
I would rather have a city that serves $30. hamburgers with the level of culture and libraries and business (and Eataly) of New York than any provincial capital that offers $10 burgers with bleak, boarded-up, deserted downtowns.”
Well I wouldn’t be too proud of a town that is home to the New York Slimes and other assorted looney, lefties. It must be difficult to be poor in New York, by the way.
I think that the 500 pound gorilla in the room that everybody seems to be missing (or avoiding) is the media coverage itself. Yes, this man, Dr Jones, is planning on an outrageous event. But the impact of this event, minus the media coverage, is somewhere around 50 people or so (the reported size of his ecclesial community). Even if, due to the sensationalistic nature of the event, it gained the coverage of the local media (on the day it actually happened), it would garner no more than 125,000 or so (the current population of Gainesville). But the media has hyped up the statements of a pastor of a small, nondenominational “church” that should have zero impact on discourse outside of its local area into a worldwide frenzy.
Speaking quite bluntly, there are nuts everywhere. There are leftist nuts and rightist nuts. There are Muslim nuts, Hindu nuts, Atheist nuts, Charismatic nuts, mainline Protestant nuts, Orthodox nuts, and, yes, even Catholic nuts. These nuts say crazy, irresponsible things all the time. Often, those crazy, irresponsible comments are inflammatory. They don’t get the attention of the worldwide press. He did. Why? It isn’t about burning a Koran. People threaten to burn books all the time (and do so quite often, as well).
My question, therefore, is: what is the media’s agenda in all of this? (I think Acts of the Apostasy, who you quoted in another post, is about the only one who has the right idea on all of this)
Roland, did you ever consider that John Paul the Great wasn’t showing respect for a book but for a people whom God calls to himself?
markomalley writes “Speaking quite bluntly, there are nuts everywhere. There are …, yes, even Catholic nuts.” Sure. Dip into the comments section of any article in the National Catholic Dissenter.
“…or women living on National Endowment of the Arts grants by stuffing yams into their orifices on stage.”
Wow. Thank God I live in near isolation on a farm far, far away.
Apparently the pastor has been persuaded by my epistle and has called off the bonfire of the inanities.
I will be nominating myself for the same Nobel carted off by Arafat, Gore and Mu-barak Hussein O’Bama.
Just because something upsets liberals doesn’t necessarily mean it’s right or prudent.
How many souls in pastor Jones going to save by his stunt?
How many innocent bystanders are going to be harmed in whatever follows from the same stunt? (and no, I am not excusing the perpetrators of any such harm.) For example, Christians in radical-Moslem-dominated societies? Martyrdom is a great thing, but it’s not for Jones (or for that matter Coulter or WDTPRS commenters) to give others that opportunity.
To put it another way, I wouldn’t expect to see our Holy Father burning any Korans soon. We Catholics should take a lead from him.
God bless
Paul
He can burn the trash in his yard if he wants to. This is still a free country last time I looked.
wmeyer, to each his own, but how often have you seen Ann Coulter take on someone of the same intellect? The liberals employed by Fox News are nothing more than props for people like Coulter and Hannity to humiliate, though I grant you the former is better-equipped than the latter. I agree with PatrickJ – Coulter is largely an entertainer, but she’s also a purveyor of the kind of red meat a Catholic cognizant of the 5th Commandment should not indulge in with any regularity. The politics of personal destruction have no place in Christianity.
It was a stupid and incendiary idea to propose building a mosque on the site of the WTC and it’s an equally stupid and incendiary idea to promote burning the Koran en masse. When we lower ourselves to the level of those who hate us, we effectively abandon our own faith and, in the process, do the enemy’s job for him. No thanks.
I’m afraid I can’t join in the praise of Ann Coulter. I find it especially hypocritical that, after eight hundred sneering, contemptuous words worthy only of teenage boys having an insult fight, she has the gall to say we shouldn’t burn copies of the Qu’ran because it isn’t nice? I never thought I’d find myself missing William F. Buckley, but ….
Is this truly the best social commentary we can produce? Ann Coulter and Keith Olbermann? Bill O’Reilly and Al Franken? Has the spirit of Hunter S. Thompson-esque “style over substance” immature ranting permanently twisted public discourse?
@ Tom Ryan: I took a look at The Ugly Truth link you provided. I don’t think I’ll be a regular presence there. Maybe it was the picture of Uncle Sam saying, “I’M ISRAEL’S B**** AND SO ARE YOU!” that put me off—or maybe it was the equally anti-Jewish comments from the followers—but I really don’t feel like trading one form of bigotry for another.
To call her the Human Uzi is to understate her. It’s like calling an alligator a lizard. She is, in fact, more like a Human M-60 or a gatling gun on an old Gooney Bird.
The religion of peace? Are you kidding me? Why is this spouted around when it is so obviously false?
Islam came on the scene in the 700s, want to say 730 or 760 anyway they have constantly been at war with someone their entire history. The notion that everyone is just picking on/starting wars with them is ridiculous.
I do not think a mosque is proper at ground zero because the people who lost their family and friends don’t want it there, period. Burning korans? I could care less on a ethical level but on the other hand, because you have the right to say/do something….doesn’t mean you should.
And… here in the posterchild for poe-dunk, you can get the best burger in the world made by Barbara for $4.95.
Its good to live out in the middle of nowhere. NY can keep it’s “culture” Culture/art is yams and crucifixes suspended in urine. Classy, naw not for me, leave me here with the uncultured swine, our burgers and art is better.
Ann Coulter shows the typical ignporance of the warmonger crowd [You might have a hard time demonstrating that Coulter is either typical or ignporant. She seems to have declared war on liberals, so we’ll grant that one.] …”there was no Guantanamo, no Afghanistan war and no Iraq war on Sept. 10, 2001. And yet, somehow, Osama bin Ladin had no trouble recruiting back then.”
Does she not know (or does she just not admit) that the American government had been bombing Iraq for the prior 10 yrs before Sept 11, and that America had SUPPORTED the radical jihadist mujahadeen in Afghanistan since 1979 or so?
I really think we live in 1984…between 2001 to 2010…”the Afghan Mujahadeen have ALWAYS been our enemy!…from 1979 to 2000…”the Afghan Mujahadeen have ALWAYS been FREEDOM FIGHTERS…the secular Commies in Afghanistan have always been our enemies!”
lol
…and Bournacatholic…what is this crazy website you link to telling us??? That 1,011 people have been killed by Muslims since the start of Ramadan?
Since the start of “Ramadan” American mothers have had about 90,000 of their own unborn children slaughtered!
Who is America’s real enemy? The Muslims, or our own women?
It would be interesting to learn more about the Bagram Bible Burning (courtesy of the U.S. military authorities), as linked above by The Egyptian. The father of the great Oxford English Dictionary knew the New Testament so well, that if he wanted to teach himself a new language he would get a copy translated into that language. Imagine a soldier similarly minded. Would he be allowed a Pashtu Bible? Probably not: even if he volunteered never, never, ever to ask a literate Afghan to help him learn the language that way, the fact that someone might find out he had it would presumably be too dangerous. But… there might be a literate Afghan who knew some English… Yet, presumably not all Bibles are forbidden to all U.S. personnel there. But what are the rules?
I suddenly thought of Matthew 11:6/Luke 7:23. What are the limits – and outlines – of avoidance of giving occasion of offence?
So many targets, so few arrows…. ;)
Tantum Ergo, I suggest you do some research about Charles Martel and San Juan Matamoros. They’ll tell you how effective “dialogue” has been with Muslims.
muckemdano, the fact that abortion is a severe moral problem in the West doesn’t exonerate an entire religion dedicated to murdering those who fail to submit to it. Yes, the Muslims are more of an enemy to the United States because they are dedicated to destroying anything that isn’t Islamic.
Besides, did the fact that the United States tolerated racial segregation mean that Americans never should have fought against two virulently racist regimes, Germany and Japan, that tried to subject the world to their wills during World War II?
Roland, JPII was good at many things but he engaged in a policy of appeasement concerning Islam. Just because “the Holy Father reverenced the Koran with a papal kiss” does not change the contents. Either they are right or wrong, regardless of any papal actions.
Some more reactions to your comments:
For example, did you know that the Incarnation is correctly described in the Coran? And the Virgin Birth? I realize that in your sect, you though a Christian of sorts, do not accept these dogmas, Moslems do. In fact, the Coran reveres the Virgin Mary as the greatest of God’s creatures. This is a lesson which you ought to take to heart or you will never see the mortal sin of the heresies in which you now labor.
First, you’ve confused the “Virgin Birth” (of Christ) with the Immaculate Conception of Mary. No evangelical Protestant that I know of disputes the Virgin Birth. For you to accuse Rev. Jones of “heresy” in this regard is ignorant.
Second, so what if the Koran “accurately” describes the Incarnation or the Virgin Birth, or reveres Mary? The fact is that Muslims do not consider Christ as the Messiah, just as another prophet. Well, Christ proclaimed Himself as “the way, the truth and the light” and that “nobody comes to the Father except through Me.” (emphases mine) If Catholics do not believe that, then all the liturgy and sacraments become nothing but play-acting.
While Catholics do not accept the Coran as divinely revealed, it can be considered as a form of private revelation, though defective. And it certainly it is far superior than some private revelations such as Medjugorje.
Really? How? While I have problems w/Medjugorje, I don’t know of people rejecting Christ because of it. In fact, I know two people who went to Medjugorje and told me that their devotion to Christ in the Eucharist was strengthened.
In conclusion, I would ask that you refrain from burning the Coran, and instead meditate upon your own heresies. The redwood trunk in your own eye socket is bigger than the splinter in Mohammed’s (PBUH).
I’m sure Rev. Jones believes that Christ is the Messiah, God’s chosen redeemer for humanity. Muslims don’t. The fact that they don’t makes them far farther from the truth than Rev. Jones is.
Besides, those comments reflect one of the more stupid elements of contemporary Catholicism: contempt for fundamentalist Protestants who believe (like Catholics and Orthodox) that Christ is the Messiah and simultaneous respect for Muslims who not only do not believe, but persecute Christians of all persuasions. This truly is a puzzlement.
I also suggest that all three of you get a copy of the May 2004 edition of Commentary Magazine. It contains an article by a French-Catholic scholar, Alain Besancon, “What Sort of Religion is Islam?” Besancon emphasizes that Allah is not Yahweh, in any way, shape or form especially concerning redemption and the whole notion of divine “fatherhood.”
Here are excerpts from a piece I wrote for Front Page Magazine in 2006:
…Benedict and his bishops must confront what French historian Alain Besancon called the “indulgent ecumenicism” that dominates the Christian response to Islam, whether through…superficial multiculturalism or through the wistful yearning for traditionalist transcendence that Besancon described in Commentary magazine:
“Contributing to the partiality toward Islam is an underlying dissatisfaction with modernity, and with our liberal, capitalist individualistic arrangements…. Alarmed by the ebbing of religious faith in the Christian West, and particularly in Europe, these writers cannot but admire Muslim devoutness…. Surely, they reason, it is better to believe in something than in nothing, and since these Muslims believe in something, they must believe in the same thing we do.”
Influencing that attitude was the work of European scholar Louis Massignon, who popularized the ideas of the Koran as a kind of biblical revelation and of Muslims as being among Abraham’s spiritual children.
“An entire literature favorable to Islam has grown up in Europe,” Besancon wrote, “much of it the work of Catholic priests under the sway of Massignon’s ideas.”
Though all three faiths are monotheistic, Islam rejects the doctrines of atonement and redemption that define Christianity and Judaism. Moreover, no concept of a covenant between God and humanity exists in Islam. Instead, Allah decrees his law “by means of a unilateral pact, in an act of sublime condescension (that) precludes any notion of imitating God as is urged in the Bible,” Besancon wrote.
Islam also rejects the Christian doctrines of original sin and the necessity of mediation between God and humanity. In the Koran, Jesus “appears… out of place and out of time, without reference to the landscape of Israel,” Besancon wrote.
Most importantly, Judeo-Christian and Muslim concepts of divinity revolve around one irreconcilable difference:
“Although Muslims like to enumerate the 99 names of God, missing from the list, but central to the Jewish and even more so to the Christian conception of God, is ‘Father’ – i.e., a personal god capable of a reciprocal and loving relation with men,” Besancon wrote. “The one God of the Koran, the God Who demands submission is a distant God; to call him ‘Father’ would be an anthropomorphic sacrilege.”
With reference to the last comment about abortion by mackemdanno, ‘Islam’ is, so to put it, morally complicated. A hundred-and-twenty-six years ago, a famous Dutch scholar of Islam converted to Islam, to go and study in Mecca. He also took the opportunity to acquire an Abyssinian slave girl, and later seemed relieved when she, knowing her way around, aborted their unwanted baby. (The English translation of his book about Mecca was reprinted in 2007.) I suspect this is not merely old history, with respect to Moslem abortion practice.
And then there is the legalistic escape from fornication which is today part of the legal code in some countries: someone marries a woman who would otherwise be a prostitute, has sex with her, then divorces her – all in a matter of minutes.
Dear DHippolito,
I would like to add another ‘fine-tuning’ clarification to your comments on the letter by Roland: while one could perhaps say that the Quran (or however one thinks best to spell it) accurately depicts the Incarnation – apparently (as, if memory serves me, I have read in a book by Louis Gardet OP) using a verb elsewhere used for the creation of the world and of Adam – this miraculous conception in the womb of the Virgin Mary is not recognized by Moslem commentators as being not only a miraculous conception but therewith the Incarnation.
Thanks for the Besancon reference! Does he mention Gardet, there?: in what I have read by the latter, he carefully attends to radical differences, such as you enumerate.
Does Besancon mention – or do you/does anyone know – how Moslem commentators reconcile the Koran reference to Abraham as “friend” of God, to rigorous rejection of ‘anthropomorphism’?
DHippolito,
you’ve confused the “Virgin Birth” (of Christ) with the Immaculate Conception of Mary.
Hardly. The Immaculate Conception is not mentioned in the Coran. Whether Jones believes in the Virgin Birth, only he knows. You don’t. The nature of protestantism is the theological everyman. If he should state categorically that he believes in the Virgin Birth, I will retract my accusation and ask him, “Nu, so what about the Immaculate Conception?” But as he is currently preoccupied with a mosque-moving scam, I won’t hold my breath.
As for the “letter” I wrote, I suggest that you have an underdeveloped sense of satire. Either that or I’m losing my edge. Hint: it was not Jones who was the object of the satire. I think it is less the dearth of arrows that handicaps you, DHippolito, but rather the inability to string the bow.
Luke,
did you ever consider that John Paul the Great wasn’t showing respect for a book but for a people whom God calls to himself.
Gee, no, it never occurred to me.
Now I have to wonder what he would have done with The Book of Mormon or The Communist Manifesto for that matter. Are Mormons and Bolsheviks not called to God?
I’ll bet Hef regrets not sending him a copy of The Playboy Philosophy. But maybe Hef is neither among the many called nor the few chosen?
Oh wait – pro multis = “for all”. Gotta love that apocatastasis.
Roland said: Whether Jones believes in the Virgin Birth, only he knows. You don’t.
It’s more accurate to say that you don’t know that he and his sect deny the Virgin Birth, despite your baseless allegation that they deny it.
Roland: Does the fact that JPII showed some regard for the Qur’an by kissing it make it somehow more than a “tissue of lies and blasphemies”? The few tenets of truth contained in that Mus’haf are weighed down by so many oppressive verses that they amount to nothing. And I have to ask: “Are you confusing sufficient and efficacious grace?” It may be easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a satirist to enter into the Kingdom of God. Writing a letter to a fellow Christian–whether you read the Gospel the same way or not–only to criticize his actions in such a flagrant way is no way to win friends and influence people. While I remain impressed that you would take the time to write a letter to this Pastor I suggest that you try a different vehicle for your ideas the next time that you sit down to express your thoughts to others.
Who is America’s real enemy? The Muslims, or our own women?
The Muslims. Allah commands them to kill or subjugate Christians and Jews. That is an easily found truism. Just pick-up The Koran and read it.
Islam is, and has always been, incompatible with Christianity and the West.
As The old Catholic Encyclopedia put it:
In matters political Islam is a system of despotism at home and aggression abroad. The Prophet commanded absolute submission to the imâm. In no case was the sword to be raised against him. The rights of non-Moslem subjects are of the vaguest and most limited kind, and a religious war is a sacred duty whenever there is a chance of success against the “Infidel”. Medieval and modern Mohammedan, especially Turkish, persecutions of both Jews and Christians are perhaps the best illustration of this fanatical religious and political spirit.
Women who kill their own unborn children are not equivalent to Islam. Women who kill their own unborn children do not seek to kill or subjugate all other Christians and Jews. Women who kill their own children are not commanded by Allah to institute Sharia Law or a universal Caliphate; etc etc etc
That “crazy” website is “crazy” why?
Because it documents the dead bodies of innocent Christians killed by Muslims ?
Dear Bornacatholic,
Reading the last sentence you quote,it might be worth underlining how sharp-sighted Gabriel Oussani is in this article for the ‘Catholic Encyclopedia’ from 1911 – before the Armenian genocide! (But it would also only be just to note how appalled some Moslems in Turkey at the time were by it – apparently some even being willing to die rather than follow orders to participate: I have just discovered ‘Martyred Armenia’ (1917) by Faiz El-Ghusein [or, also, simply ‘Ghusayn’] on-line, but not read it all, yet.)
Oussani finely observes, “The rights of non-Moslem subjects are of the vaguest and most limited kind”. That “vaguest” puts the finger on a huge and grave problem: in certain circumstances it may be ‘not so bad’, or even ‘comparatively good’ (I think the Jesuits enjoyed more freedom in the Lebanon at the end of the 16th century than in England), but I take it there are even fewer guarantees of any kind than there often are in this fallen world(how few and frail they ever are, the governments (etc.) of the English-speaking ‘democracies’ – and also the American republic – seem ferociously bent on demonstrating these days).
And that uncertainty does not just apply to the “rights of non-Moslem subjects”: it seems endemic in ‘Islam’. To imagine an example that is probably not too far-fetched: which Moslem will think it fine if a non-Moslem wants to study the Koran in Arabic, which other will think anyone who thinks that is no true Moslem and deserves to be put to death together with the non-Moslem aspiring Koran reader? Which thinks it incumbent upon him to put them to death?
Great article, and no personal offense to those above who call her a “war-monger”, it is not “us” who are mongering for war, but the Islamists.
Islamists hate us, the West, the Catholic Church, the Pope, freedom, beauty, truth, and the Messiah-God-Man, Christ.
I am so glad you posted this, Father Z.
Dear Supertradmum,
The situation is more difficult still: which Moslem would not say he is motivated by the love of truth in promoting the right service of the God of Abraham (and of Adam, and so on throughout history up to and including the Virgin Mary and her Son)?
The pro-gay marriage fund-raising Coulter should be anathema to all thinking Catholics.
Great Article Anne Coulter per usual!
Frank, never knew pro-gay marriage fund-raising Coulter…hmm
Venerator,
Coulter’s point is the same as those of us who see the deceit and violence behind the so-called “community outreaches” of a religion that throughout history has chosen the way of war. If we must defend ourselves, fine, but as Ms. Coulter pointed out, it did not take anything to exacerbate hatred on Sept. 10, 2001. Those who chose not to see the violence and hatred in the Koran and in Islam, preferring to believe in “moderation” are not facing reality. In all of the blogs on Islam, you seem to have missed the point of the true nature of a very, large group of Islamic people who want to wipe the Catholic Church off the face of the earth, and with it, Western civilization, for which we do not have to apologize, is threatening all rational and cultured men and women around the world..
Jordanes,
Jones is free to reply if he feels maligned. Though your zealotry in his defense is compelling.
You do, on the one hand have a point. Neither you nor I know what Pastor Jones’ personal theology is. But that is the point, isn’t it? No one can pin down a protestant on matters theologic. I infer, perhaps rashly, that he does not accept the Virgin Birth. Or if so, then the Perpetual Virginity. A small matter in the greater scheme of things, is it not, since he most assuredly denies the major tenets of Catholic doctrine, both East and West.
BTW, I am short of funds at the moment and therefore am starting my own sect based on Lutheran, Calvinistic, Zwinglian and Rolandic teachings. I am burning a copy of Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures on Mary Baker Eddy’s birthday next year. All are welcome. Bring your own transfusion.
Luke Whittaker,
I put the word “letter” in quotes in my reply to DHippolito. I never wrote a letter. It was just a feeble attempt at satire in the context of an ephemeral combox. I subsequently called the Jones’ antics a “bonfire of the inanities.” Sorry you didn’t get the point.
BTW, although the devil may quote Scripture to his purpose, he does not bowdlerize it. Verbum sat sapientibus. Where does it say satirists won’t get into heaven? If Voltaire’s not there, it will be a dull place indeed. God has a sense of humor. Or what’s a circumcision for?
Dear Supertradmum,
To what comment are you responding with yours of 10 Sept. at 4:46 pm? Where do you think you see any evidence that I “seem to have missed the point of the true nature of a very, large group of Islamic people who want to wipe the Catholic Church off the face of the earth, and with it, Western civilization, for which we do not have to apologize, is threatening all rational and cultured men and women around the world”?
I find that assertion bizarre in the extreme!
You sound alarmingly like those secularists who would substitute for, or add to, “in the Bible and in Judaism and Christianity”, where you write “in the Koran and in Islam” in your sentence “Those who chose not to see the violence and hatred in the Koran and in Islam, preferring to believe in ‘moderation’ are not facing reality” and who would characterize each of them equally as “a religion that throughout history has chosen the way of war”. Such ‘secularists'(if, as I think, that is an applicable description) exist, they can be easily found, and your lack of care in expression, here, puts nothing in their way.
Do you suppose those who you may accurately call “a very, large group of Islamic people who want to wipe the Catholic Church off the face of the earth” would say they acted from a hatred of truth, or a love of truth, or if they spoke of ‘hatred’ they would not speak of a justifiable hatred of that which (they are convinced) is hateful to God?
I am not for a moment suggesting they would simply be right, to speak in that way. But surely it is a very big and deep part of the true nature of the problem, that such a person may be convinced, and may constantly reinforce himself in that conviction, that he is acting from “the love of truth” – and also that he has no need for critical reflection whether he has got it right, or not.