"Perfecting Jews"

By Jeralyn, Section Media
Posted on Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 11:55:21 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Since generally I don't think what the She-Pundit with long blonde hair says is of any import, I haven't written about the latest imbroglio over her comments about perfecting Jews. While I got that it was insulting, I didn't have any idea what it meant, having never heard the term before. Nor was I inclined to look it up.

Inadvertantly, I came across this LA Times commentary which explains it very well and has convinced me that it's a dangerous concept that needs to be exposed for its anti-semitism.

First, her comments on the Donny Deutsch show:

At one point, Deutsch asked her what an ideal country would be like, and she replied that it would be one in which everyone was "a Christian." Deutsch, who happens to be Jewish, protested that Coulter was advocating his people's elimination. She responded that she simply hoped to see Jews "perfected" through conversion to Christianity.

What it means:

The notion that Jews are religiously inferior or imperfect because they do not accept Christian beliefs was the basis for 2,000 years of church-based anti-Semitism. ....the idea that Judaism needs to be replaced with Christianity and that each individual Jew is somehow deficient and needs to be "perfected" is rank Christian supersessionism and has been rejected by the Catholic Church and the vast majority of mainstream Christian denominations.

...."supersessionism," the theological notion that Christianity "completes" or "perfects" Judaism is, along with the deicide libel, anti-Semitism's major theological underpinning. Indeed, in Central and Western Europe between the world wars, there was a substantial body of purportedly "respectable" intellectual opinion that held "supersessionism" made possible a "reasonable" theological anti-Semitism that was entirely licit, as opposed to the Nazis' and fascists' illicit, "racially based" anti-Semitism.

It is fair to say that the rails leading to Auschwitz were greased by precisely the opinion Coulter expressed on American television this week.

Following in Coulter's footsteps: Debbie Scheussel.

True religious Jews are not offended by Ann [Coulter]'s comments, though they really appreciate her alliance with our causes. It's only the Jewish libs, like Deutch [sic], who are feigning this shock and outrage. That's because she's a threat to their real religion: liberalism.

Pathetic. Both of them.

< Another "Phony Soldier" | Anita Explains Hunter Thompson >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

"Perfecting Jews" | 73 comments (73 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

i was raised catholic, (5.00 / 2) (#1)
by cpinva on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 12:18:39 AM EST

attended catholic schools (where my mom, jewish, taught for 30 years), went to mass twice weekly, was an altar boy (stop laughing!), studied both testaments, and don't ever recall this particular concept being discussed, much less taught as part of catholic dogma.

i have no clue what religion taught that to ms. coulter, or if she really believes it, and wasn't just throwing it out there, to raise book sales, but it has nothing to do with any christianity i've ever heard of.

that no one with a functioning half-brain takes her seriously is probably true. however, that leaves all those with functioning quarter-brains that do. that's a pretty high percentage of our total population. that's why she and her ilk are dangerous to a free society.

: We should let these things pass. (none / 0) (#6)
by RedHead on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 02:59:48 AM EST

that no one with a functioning half-brain takes her seriously is probably true.
For the sake of argument, if a blogger for Move-on said the same thing, the Senate would be holding a vote next week.
Tie the wicked witch around every endangered republican's neck (Collins, Sununu, Shays), the way Clinton tied newt gingrich around Bob Dole's neck.
Norm Coleman is Jewish, why hasn't he denounced her? Wanna bet their are photos of them together partying at RNC convention, etc.
And while we're at it, make Lieberman squirm.
Coulter: "I think he should just come all the way and become a Republican. He wouldn't be our best Republican but at least he'd fit in with the party that wants to defend the country."

: Most Christianity is implicitly supersessionist (none / 0) (#9)
by robrecht on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 07:30:57 AM EST

... but it has nothing to do with any christianity i've ever heard of.
I'm sure it was not part of your experience, or that of most American Catholics, which is fairly insular and non-evangelical in the broader literal sense.
But this attitude of superiority of Christianity to Judaism is deeply entrenched in more conservative Catholic theology and even more so among Christian fundamentalists.
Some think it's based on Jesus' own understanding of his role if he indeed spoke of a (new) covenant, but it's debatable whether he ever intended to found a church or new religion. Once later Christians started referring to their writings as the New Testament (same word as covenant) and the(ir) Jewish scriptures as the Old Testament, it became a fundamental hermeneutical and is at the basis of all uncritical Christian theology.

If Coulter is an example of (5.00 / 2) (#3)
by kovie on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 01:32:30 AM EST

the sort of "Christian" that Jews are supposed to aspire to become as they "perfect" themselves, what can I say except that if god intended me to be a demented blonde shiksah, she would have made me one.

Nearly 25 years that I've had to endure knowing that I shared a planet with this portal to gehenom. She speaks, and the devil--if there is one--smiles.

Good point, but vas is das (none / 0) (#5)
by oculus on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 02:47:31 AM EST

"gehenom"?


Hebrew for hell (5.00 / 2) (#7)
by kovie on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 03:28:39 AM EST

Comes from the name of a gulch used as a garbage dump near the old city of Jerusalem in the Old Testament. I figured that since she's so eager to "perfect" me, I might as well throw some "imperfection" back at her.


also spelled Gehenna (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by scribe on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 09:44:52 AM EST

True (5.00 / 1) (#27)
by kovie on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 06:13:21 PM EST

But since I happen to speak fluent Hebrew, I can assure you that people who speak Hebrew in non-liturgical contexts pronounce it "Gehenom".

Kind of like how many religious, non-Hebrew speaking Jews say "Succos" and "Shabbos", while Hebrew speaking Jews (and, I suppose, non-Jews) say "Succot" and "Shabbat". No biggee, but pronounciation is a pet issue of mine.

Either way, however it's pronounced, if there is one, Coulter's going straight to the land of Lucifer. Do they allow cocktail dresses there?


: I hope so : ) (none / 0) (#28)
by robrecht on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 06:15:47 PM EST

it's also thought (none / 0) (#19)
by cpinva on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 01:14:40 PM EST

to be a primary inspiration for the concept of "hell", in early christian theology.

funny thing about coulter, she seems to have completely overlooked the fact that jesus was jewish, to the end. and not just any, run of the mill, ordinary jewish either, he is thought to have been a member of a particularly stringent sect, the essenes. i guess, in her eyes, he wasn't "perfected".

but yes, hang her, and limbaugh, hannity, carlson, savage, et al, around the necks of all republicans. i should think they would welcome the association.


Pathetic is wrong (5.00 / 2) (#4)
by koshembos on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 02:26:21 AM EST

Coutler and Scheussel are not pathetic; they mimic Osama bin Landen. He replaces Christianity with Islam and demands perfection of all religions other than Islam, his perfect one.

Why do we listen? (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by FUMRBush on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 07:48:48 AM EST

We give Anne her audience. Why do we listen to her? Why does MSM give her coverage? More questions than a comment but I am bewildered. Where is the outrage from the community that took Imus off the air?

because, (5.00 / 2) (#11)
by cpinva on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 09:04:49 AM EST

Why does MSM give her coverage?

she generates revenues for them. same reason her books are published. if you've ever actually read one of them, you'd quickly realize what a waste of good paper they are; they aren't very well written, and let's just say they are lacking in substantive support for the majority of her assertions.

however, they're great for bulk sales. it's these kinds of PR stunts that ramp them up. were it not for that, no one would waste time on her. she adds nothing constructive to the discussion of serious issues, but the "ditto heads" love her, because she tells them what they want to hear: their failures in life are all someone else's fault.

: Brilliant! (none / 0) (#12)
by robrecht on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 09:15:11 AM EST

but the "ditto heads" love her, because she tells them what they want to hear: their failures in life are all someone else's fault.

LOL. Very effective judo, to use the right's criticism of the left against them!

Spit out my coffee when I read this (5.00 / 2) (#14)
by Molly Bloom on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 09:56:02 AM EST

Meanwhile, Coulter was on the Kevin McCullough radio talk show, making the utterly absurd case that Deutsch somehow had ambushed her. On his blog later in the day, McCullough agreed. Deutsch, he said, "is an angry anti-Christian bigot, looking to make a name for himself by biting into Christian icons."

Ann Coulter a Christian icon? That would be news to a most Christians I know.

TL's note on the presence of this stream of (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by scribe on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 10:16:33 AM EST

"legitimate" anti-Semitism in Central and Western Eurpoean interwar thought is well taken, but those strains still resound today - pretty loudly. In one sense, the Coultergeist is merely following the Pope and is therefore not that far "out there" (I'm not justifying, just reporting...).

The current Pope (remember, a German and former Hitler Youth member, though the claim is it was "forced" membership) has gotten himself in a bit of a pickle within the past year over reviving the Tridentine (Latin) Mass. (That's not the only place - he's also gotten in a bit of a mess over calling the various Protestant churches, um, not true Churches. But that's for another day.) From an article this year, in the Jerusalem Post:

The Vatican is expected to publish this week a document authorizing the use of a controversial Latin Mass, parts of which are deemed anti-Semitic, the Holy See announced Thursday.
According to a report in Britain's Independent newspaper, some clergy fear that if the Latin Mass were brought back into common use, it would limit the Church's dialogue with Jews and Muslims, as well as create a schism among Catholics worldwide.
The 16th-century Tridentine Mass - recited every Good Friday - refers to Jews as "perfidious," and claims they live in "blindness" and "darkness." The Mass prays that God might "take the veil from their hearts" so that Jews can come to acknowledge Jesus Christ.
Rev. Keith Pecklers, an expert on Jesuit liturgy, told the Independent that elements in the Church who embraced the old Mass tended to oppose "collaboration with other Christians and [the Church's] dialogue with Jews and Muslims."
Currently, priests who wish to recite the Latin Mass, which was replaced in 1969 with liturgy in the vernacular, must receive permission from their bishops.

[One should note the Jerusalem Post article is illustrated with an image of a woodcut of the Blood Libel, just to make clear to even the densest readers what the issue is about. I found it by googling "Pope anti-semitic" - this just scratches the surface of what's going on.]

The whole "bring back the Latin Mass" movement within the Catholic Church has been, since Vatican II, a refuge of and for the more radically authoritarian and right-wing among Catholics, those most dissatisfied with the Vatican II reforms. And, it should be remembered, Vatican II was itself partly (how big a part, I'll let you decide) a reaction to the horrors of WWII which were, themselves, granted some degree of legitimacy by the very currents of European thought talked about in the main post, and which manifested themselves (in part) in the Church's declining to help the Jews avoid the Holocaust. "Liberalizing" the Church in Vatican II was the big bone of contention among the winguts in the Church, until they were given abortion to organize around. But, they view abortion as an intermediate step to rolling back those reforms. There's not a lot of Christ's Love running around in their veins, I can tell you from experience.

One can easily, and correctly, view the Church's change of position on the Tridentine Mass as an act similar to Reagan or Bush I addressing a wingnut constituency - say the NRA or anti-abortion protesters - via telephone or video hookup. Enough to tickle them under the chin and let them know they're loved and approved, but not enough to satisfy them and therefore driving them to even more strident demands for more from the authority figure doing the tickling.

And, CP, you were simply not attending the right Catholic churches and schools. I went to grade school (in the USA) run by nuns from a missionary order - they'd do 5 years or so in the New Guinea missions with the headhunters, and then come back to the tough job of dealing with us in grade school. A favorite expression to keep us in line: "Don't be pagans!" A lot of unsaid, implicit patronizing and racial superiority and not so much of Christian love.

New Testament = anti-Semitism, literally (none / 0) (#54)
by Aaron on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 09:01:25 PM EST

Face it, it doesn't matter what version of the New Testament you reference, they all have a large sections which are openly anti-Semitic.

I'm not enough of the biblical scholar to tell you exactly where, but I have read several versions of the New Testament, and all of them are filled with sentences that began with, "The Jew" and passages that end with "the Jew." Nearly all of which make derogatory references to Jewish people and describe their behavior in negative terms.

It's in vogue these days to go on about the hatred and condemnations contained in the Koran, yet the New Testament is filled with much the same thing, you never hear Christians or secular society in the states mention any of this these days.

All Judeo-Christian-Islamic religious beliefs are inexorably connected to one another, we are all part of the same family, yet we insist on promoting hate and slaughtering each other like some kind of deeply dysfunctional family, which is exactly what we are. Progress has been made, yet once again we seem to be falling back into our old ways, of looking for scapegoats, and condemning the unknown and unknowable Other.

Until human society collectively agrees that these religious texts are metaphorical, filled with bias and prejudice, that cannot be taken literally, and was never meant to be taken literally, then we will continue to repeat the mistakes of our ancestors.

Literal interpretations of religious text will always remain a danger to human society because they are based in absolutes, absolutes that reasoning thinking people know to be false. If we want to take the power out of the hands of the fundamentalists of every religion permanently, there's only one way to promote such change, and it is through liberal secular education.

We must dispel the ignorance and superstition of the past by giving everyone the tools and ability to reason their way through their lives. Otherwise we will continually fall back into these tribal based religious squabbles, and in a nuclear age that is a recipe for the destruction of all.


: Good stuff Aaron.... (5.00 / 0) (#64)
by kdog on Mon Oct 15, 2007 at 12:27:50 PM EST

We could "perfect" all the religions with an infusion of healthy, old fashioned agnostic doubt.

What religion does (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by Al on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 12:02:36 PM EST

If you look at what religion actually does to society, it separates people. It's all about tribal competition, kept alive through hatred and fear. Ultimately, it leads to war and death. The she-pundit merely expresses it, in a shockingly clear way.

The day when people stop defining themselves as Christian or Jewish or Muslim will be a happy day indeed. A world at peace will be a world without religious banners of any kind.

Would you say the same thing about ... ? (none / 0) (#18)
by robrecht on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 12:20:13 PM EST

Would you say the same thing about Democrats and Republicans? In other words:

The day when people stop defining themselves as Democrats or Republicans or Independents will be a happy day indeed. A world at peace will be a world without political banners of any kind.


no, i wouldn't. (none / 0) (#20)
by cpinva on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 01:25:10 PM EST

the last time i checked, the dems and republicans haven't gone so far as to mount "crusades" against each other, officially sanctioned by the various leaders of each group.

however, since the republicans have aligned themselves with fundamentalist christian groups, this could change.

religion, on the other hand, while a force for good, has a much checkered history of righteous bloodshed, all in the name of "insert your god's name here".

all that said, if the republicans see the light, we democrats would be more than happy to welcome them into the fold. :)


I agree with you about Republican fundamentalists (none / 0) (#21)
by robrecht on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 01:35:43 PM EST

and their 'crusades' against Islam and even Jews now it seems. And it's probably true that US Democrats and Republicans rarely come to blows ... but I'd like to know a little more about the Civil War context of that question. But it's not like Democrats have not had their share of war mongers either. LBJ? Andrew Jackson's Indian wars. Lieberman, oops, he's an Independent now.


The crusades were (none / 0) (#30)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 02:58:20 PM EST

800 or so years ago.

So why do you think they have anything with this.

Further, the crusades were against Moslems who were attacking and killing Jews in their desire to control the "Holy Land."


The crusaders commited (5.00 / 0) (#32)
by jondee on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 03:09:03 PM EST

numerous pogroms against the Jews while on the sojourn to "The Holy Land".

Imagine that, Chritians subject to the same frailties as 'em Moos-lims.


The ignorance never stops. (5.00 / 0) (#33)
by jondee on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 03:12:48 PM EST

What's your point? (1.00 / 0) (#37)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 04:02:40 PM EST

So??

What's your point? Genghis Khan killed millions...

Referring to something happened around 800 years ago is just a deliberate attempt to be derogatory when their isn't any evidence of this happening now.

And don't bring out the occasional nut cases. The crusades were sponsored by the Catholic Church and what passed for organized governments at that time.

Imagine that, Chritians subject to the same frailties as 'em Moos-lims.

And in the following 800 or so years, the Christian faith went through something called the Reformation. Islam has not.


Mary, Mother of God, help this poor soul! (5.00 / 0) (#45)
by robrecht on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 05:11:34 PM EST

And don't bring out the occasional nut cases.

But this thread is about Ann Coulter!

And in the following 800 or so years, the Christian faith went through something called the Reformation. Islam has not.

Do you honestly believe that Protestant Christianity has somehow avoided the practice of religious violence and bloodshed? Mary, Mother of God, someone should teach this boy some history! Martin Luther himself upheld the rights of the German princes to suppress the peasant rebellion of the anabaptists who wanted to eliminate infant baptism and establish a more radical Christian society.


Usama bin Luther promises heaven by bloodshed (5.00 / 0) (#47)
by robrecht on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 05:52:01 PM EST

With threefold horrible sins against God and men have these peasants loaded themselves, for which they have deserved a manifold death of body and soul. ...
It is right and lawful to slay at the first opportunity a rebellious person, who is known as such, for he is already under God's and the emperor's ban. Every man is at once judge and executioner of a public rebel; just as, when a fire starts, he who can extinguish it first is the best fellow. ...
Therefore, whosoever can, should smite, strangle, and stab, secretly or publicly, and should remember that there is nothing more poisonous, pernicious, and devilish than a rebellious man. Just as one must slay a mad dog, so, if you do not fight the rebels, they will fight you, and the whole country with you.
Third, they cloak their frightful and revolting sins with the gospel, call themselves Christian brethren, swear allegiance, and compel people to join them in such abominations. Thereby they become the greatest blasphemers and violators of God's holy name, and serve and honor the devil under the semblance of the gospel, so that they have ten times deserved death of body and soul, for never have I heard of uglier sins. ...
And should the peasants prevail (which God forbid!), -- for all things are possible to God, and we know not but that he is preparing for the judgment day, which cannot be far distant, and may purpose to destroy, by means of the devil, all order and authority and throw the world into wild chaos, -- yet surely thy who are found, sword in hand, shall perish in the wreck with clear consciences, leaving to the devil the kingdom of this world and receiving instead the eternal kingdom. For we are come upon such strange times that a prince may more easily win heaven by the shedding of blood than others by prayers.

Sölch wunderliche Zeiten sind itzt, daß ein Fürst den Himmel mit Blutvergießen verdienen kann baß denn andere mit Beten.


Your argument is slim (1.00 / 0) (#52)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 08:26:47 PM EST

Quoting any one single act within a historical struggle/actions is pure nonsense.

It is not the growth of the tree, but the fruit that it finally bears that is important now.

Western civilization has grown and improved itself.

That can not be said of the Moslem world.

Your continual reference to things centuries old demonstrates a lack of ability to know or see history.


Luther was hardly an isolated individual (none / 0) (#57)
by robrecht on Mon Oct 15, 2007 at 07:01:11 AM EST

Luther's position, as the originator of the reformation, is hardly an isolated act. His position became that of most state churches. So I think you're wrong to think the Protestant Reformation was the driving force behind purposely weakening the political influence of Christianity. And many Christians today still seek to increase their church's political role. Think of Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Ann Coulter, etc.


Quit thinking of " incidents" (none / 0) (#61)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 15, 2007 at 09:02:48 AM EST

So I think you're wrong to think the Protestant Reformation was the driving force behind purposely weakening the political influence of Christianity.

I didn't say "purposely." It came as part of the package. If the Church could not sell forgiveness, then obviously its political influence was weakened. It was a long process, but that was the result.

And yes, some religious leaders seek to influence and gain power. Leaving Coulter out, there are many others.. I note you left out the National Council of Churches, and didn't mention the role of the black churches in politics. Isn't it the Reverend Sharpton and Reverend Jackson? I see good coming out of all these. I also see bad. The trick is to keep the good and throw away the bad.


: Silly (none / 0) (#73)
by robrecht on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 05:10:22 PM EST

Have the National Council of Churches, Sharpton, or Jackson called for the killing or assasination of government leaders?
It's absolutely silly to consider the selling of indulgences as the central issue here.

No, the Christian faith (1.00 / 0) (#48)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 08:04:25 PM EST

is filled with violence between sects.

Your problem is that 99.9999999% of it stopped a very long time ago.

That was the fruit of the Reformation.

My point is, was and remains a simple one.

Talking about the Crusades as an explanation or excuse about anything that is currently happening is vapid and intellectually unacceptable and demonstrates a very weak position.


Crusader Coulter (none / 0) (#58)
by robrecht on Mon Oct 15, 2007 at 07:08:31 AM EST

Protestant and Catholic terrorism in Ireland was not so long ago, at least I'm old enough to remember it well. Christian apartheid in South Africa was not so long ago either.

I did not talk about the Crusades as an explanation or excuse. I used it as an evocative reminder of what Christian political minds are capable of, and the veneer of 'Christianity' is what is used falsely.

Do you agree with Ann Coulter that we we should invade Islamic countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity?


: Ireland's troubles (none / 0) (#62)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 15, 2007 at 09:06:33 AM EST

was centered in a very small country with a small population and was more of a revolt against the Brits than a religious war. In any event, please note that I said 99.99999999% happened long ago.

"Christian faith" (none / 0) (#67)
by jondee on Mon Oct 15, 2007 at 01:35:03 PM EST

And Christian civilsation went through something called the slave trade, the creation of the Holocaust and the invention of nuclear weapons..

We'll get it right one of these days.


History, culture, and Islam vs Christofascism (none / 0) (#41)
by robrecht on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 04:42:46 PM EST

I used the word 'crusades' with quotation marks so that no one would miscontrue my meaning in an overly literalist sense.

It's a question of attitude, some 'religious' (note the quotation marks, please) people denigrate the religions of others. The 'spirit' of the crusades still survives today in the hearts of some 'religious' (note the quotation marks again, please) people.

But if you do want to discuss this in a historical sense, great irony can be found in the cultural openess and immense contributions of Islam to western culture during the time that 'Christianity' (note the quotation marks yet again, please) was discovering the political power of the crusades. If it weren't for Muslim scholars and their advanced culture, we might know hardly anything of Socrates, Plato, and Aristototle, and our knowledge of mathematics and astronomy would no doubt be retarded by centuries of ignorance and stupidity.


Not believable (1.00 / 0) (#49)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 08:14:57 PM EST

Then why use it at all?

Your excuse is not acceptable. You wanted to infer.

That's a typical way to make a weak point. I called you on it. Now you make excuses.

No one is denying that Moslems acted to preserve many of the treasures of past civilizations, while it was busy trying to stamp out the west. Kinda like "We had to destroy the village to save it."

It seems that you are more concerned with what you claim to be in the hearts of some "Christians" rather than the demonstrable of what is in the hearts of some radical Moslems.

Perhaps it is time for you to consider what the damages would be to a liberal western society if the radical Moslems should take control of it.

And don't laugh. I remind you of the honor killings all over Europe and the killing of a film producer in Holland.


Crusades Are The Rage (5.00 / 0) (#55)
by squeaky on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 09:46:59 PM EST

I used the word 'crusades' with quotation marks so that no one would miscontrue my meaning in an overly literalist sense.

Then why use it at all?

Tell that to BUsh. The Crusades are the inescapeable subtext. The She-Pundit with long blonde hair is the latest example.


: You are (none / 0) (#56)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 09:55:45 PM EST

irrational... However Bush or Coulter uses it has nothing to do with the fact that when you start to use 800 year old examples you won't be correct...

Crusader Jim? (none / 0) (#59)
by robrecht on Mon Oct 15, 2007 at 07:10:11 AM EST

Nope (none / 0) (#60)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 15, 2007 at 08:52:35 AM EST

Again you confuse my belief that it is possible to defend other's free speech without my agreeing with them.

In this case, my point is:

Why is bad for someone to honestly and non-violently and without discrimination against the other person wish that someone join their faith?

That is the gist of Coulter's comments.


: You're changing the subject (none / 0) (#74)
by robrecht on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 05:20:19 PM EST

When did this become an argument about Ann Coulter's freedom of speech???
I also didn't see a response to Bush's and Coulter's talk about 'crusades'. I believe Bush later regretted his use of this language. Has Coulter stood by her earlier call to invade Islamic countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity???
Of course she has the right to say bigotted and idiotic things, and we have the right to criticize her statements. And you have the right to completely miss the point.

Oh, I also agree about the history of religious (none / 0) (#22)
by robrecht on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 01:44:17 PM EST

bloodshed.


Btw, I love your (5.00 / 1) (#40)
by jondee on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 04:34:08 PM EST

archive of old posts.

Funny how the one in which you called for the hanging of disobedient young American soldiers disappeared.

What happened, did you make a littl extra "donation"?

: Heh (1.00 / 1) (#63)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 15, 2007 at 11:12:58 AM EST

Why don't you email TL and ask her?
And why are you so wrapped up in that one??
I have previously said that soldiers have been executed for various reasons.

Can anyone tell me??? (1.00 / 0) (#31)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 03:08:26 PM EST

Would it be bad for a Moslem to wish that a Christian convert to Islam? A Christian to wish a Moslem convert to Christianity?? Or a Jew to Christianity? etc.....

I just don't see it. And if it bothers the Left, I think it is just looking for a problem.

And why do many of the people who are bothered by this apparently are not bothered by the leader of Iran denying the holocaust and making statements about the destruction of Israel??

Phony Christians? (5.00 / 0) (#43)
by robrecht on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 04:54:08 PM EST

Coulter's arrogant and sometimes militant expressions of of Christian superiority and denigration of Judaism and Islam should be offensive to both social liberals and truly religious people in my opinion.

Here's your Sunday Bible verse of the day:

"And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God."


That "social liberalism" (5.00 / 0) (#44)
by jondee on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 04:57:56 PM EST

is as flimsy and insubstantial as wet bathroom tissue.


: So it would seem! Thanks for the retraction. (none / 0) (#46)
by robrecht on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 05:12:51 PM EST

Why?? (1.00 / 0) (#53)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 08:34:10 PM EST

If she believes that Christianity is the perfection of Judaism, and much better than Islam, isn't it her right to express such views?

It is the touchstone of our civilization that we can each feel superior in our religion, try and convert each other, and at the end of the day, walk home together in peace.

Your attack on these grounds is thin gruel at best.

But the final and most important test comes after the religious discussions and ends with:

What have you done for me lately??

"Perfection" (none / 0) (#66)
by jondee on Mon Oct 15, 2007 at 12:59:52 PM EST

Of course Ann, Robertson, Falwell et al, are proof of that.

What more evidence of perfection would anyone need?

And woe to the "impure" non-believer.


And your point is that these people aren't (none / 0) (#68)
by jimakaPPJ on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 09:17:23 AM EST

perfect? So? Wow. Such depth of observation.

The issue isn't the actions of Coulter, Falwell, etc., but the belief that the birth of Christ was the end of the Old Testament. Thus Judaism was "perfected."

: The point, (none / 0) (#70)
by jondee on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 01:02:44 PM EST

other than the one on your head, is that there's no "perfection" of anything aside from results in the real world.
The issue is the actions of everyone, not some sadistic, pagan sacrifice 2000 years ago.

Claiming that non-converted (none / 0) (#34)
by jondee on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 03:35:24 PM EST

Jews are destined to burn in Hell forever is non-descriminative?

Also, Einstein, provide some evidence other than her rather discredited word, that Coulter practices Christianity.

You're on a roll.


if you've got some evidence (5.00 / 0) (#35)
by jondee on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 03:40:21 PM EST

of anyone here defending holocaust deniers statements, I'd like to see it.

Nice try though; right up there with your defence of the pogrom commiting Crusaders.


Can't carry the facts in a bucket (1.00 / 0) (#38)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 04:07:48 PM EST

can you?? I made no defense of any wrongs that the Crusaders did, or did not, do.

I did point out that using something that happened around 800 years ago is not relevant.

What a smearer you are.

Are you squeaky in disguise??


"No defence" (5.00 / 1) (#42)
by jondee on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 04:44:54 PM EST

Other than an idiotic, wildly inaccurate attempt to make it sound as if the Crusaders were engaged in some noble mission to defend Jews.

As i've said before, if you were caught in flagrante delicte with a goose, you'd claim you were just stuffing sofa cushions.


Prove it (1.00 / 0) (#50)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 08:16:58 PM EST

Of course you cannot.

Your abilities have become less and less over the years.

Have you had a test for an early onset of senile dementia??


"Prove it" (5.00 / 0) (#65)
by jondee on Mon Oct 15, 2007 at 12:56:42 PM EST

LOL

Prove what; that you'd rather glory in your ignorance than take 3 minutes to Google Crusades + Jews?

Whats the matter, afraid a little knowledge might make you impure, like Ann's Jews?


Thanks for the amusement. (none / 0) (#69)
by jimakaPPJ on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 09:29:26 AM EST

Duhhhhh..

You claimed that I defended the Crusaders..

I noted that I had not, and challenged you to prove that I had.

You did not. And you know you can't.

Now you want me to educate myself...

About what? I made no claim.

You are a smearer, Jondee.

Troll is your name and Trolling is your game.

hehe


I never defended Tom Delay (5.00 / 1) (#71)
by jondee on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 01:14:57 PM EST

prove that I have.

You claimed up the thread that the Crusaders were protecting Jews.

But, you "made no claim".

You smear yourself well enough without anyones help.


: It's worth menttioning (5.00 / 1) (#72)
by jondee on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 01:25:04 PM EST

that Maimonides (a Jew's Jew if there ever was one) was Saladin's personal physician at a time when Jim's "Moslems wre killing Jews".

Try some fish oil... (1.00 / 0) (#36)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 03:56:50 PM EST

That is a religious belief. I repeat.

Why is (it)bad for someone to honestly and non-violently and without discrimination against the other person wish that someone join their faith?

BTW - I didn't say she practiced anything. I merely made an observation regarding religious tolerance as it should relate to conversions.

If you want to talk about violence and religion, you should ask the radical Moslems why they are killing each other and flying airliners into buildings.

"Zero weight" (none / 0) (#68)
by jondee on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 01:09:56 PM EST
means you're either completely out to lunch, or so occupied recieving "links" that you havnt heard or noticed that the bulwark of pressure and support from organized "Christians" for regime-change and The Greater Israel comes from groups that embrace the very dangerous, crack-brained, theological vision I described.
[ Parent | Reply to This | 1 2 3 4 5 ]
Yeah, in the long view, (none / 0) (#69)
by jondee on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 01:15:08 PM EST
I believe they're equal threats.

Yes, bring up radical Muslims (none / 0) (#39)
by jondee on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 04:31:23 PM EST

Why not serial murderers?

It stll dosnt make you and Ann look better.

Quit while you're behind.


: You are growing weaker.. (1.00 / 0) (#51)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 08:20:54 PM EST

Serial murderers are outcasts in the western societies.
Yet al-AQaida and other terrorist organizations have not been strongly and continually condemned by the international Moslem community..
The reasons are simple. The governments of the countries involved are so weak that they fear the reprisals of the radicals.
And, as long as they see the US vacillating over the issue, they will also.

Deutsch "happens to be Jewish." (none / 0) (#2)
by oculus on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 12:23:53 AM EST

Strange, but PC I guess, terminology.

Same old Ann (none / 0) (#8)
by ding7777 on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 07:26:07 AM EST

Six years ago:

We should invade [Islamic] countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity.

It was a joke (none / 0) (#15)
by Che's Lounge on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 10:13:47 AM EST

You liberals have no sense of humor.

: Plus, (none / 0) (#23)
by jondee on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 01:50:56 PM EST

she's just an entertainer.

: Oh, you mean like Bush is a joke? (none / 0) (#24)
by robrecht on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 02:02:39 PM EST

Supersessionism (none / 0) (#26)
by kaleidescope on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 02:39:09 PM EST

A Jewish friend of mine refers to Christianity as "the pocket part".

Ann Coulter needs to be seen on TV (none / 0) (#29)
by Saul on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 10:16:17 PM EST

in order to remind us of what is so wrong in this world and also so people will make sure that you never want to become like her.

"Perfecting Jews"

The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

Menu

Search

Login

Creator and Principal Author

TL Alumni

Contribute To TalkLeft

Sections

Site Credits

Legal

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment