Ann Coulter vs. Reality
Case in point is Ann "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity" Coulter, who writes about the legal challenges to Roy Moore's antics, including his early efforts to have Christian prayers in the courts:
Obviously you can't have prayer in court: It might distract all the people holding their hand over a Bible and swearing before God almighty to tell the truth.
That's Ann Coulter's fantasy. In reality, no one has to put a hand on a Bible and swear before God to tell the truth - if anyone doesn't want to do this, they can simply affirm that they will tell the truth. It's only people like Coulter who are upset over this, thinking that unless a person swears to their god, then they can't be trusted.
An affirmative action, Carter-appointed judge ... found that the Ten Commandments plaque violated the First Amendment. Apparently, in a little-noticed development, Judge Moore had become "Congress," his Ten Commandments plaque was a "law," and the plaque established a national religion.
It is only a part of Coulter's fantasy that constitutional limitations on the government's power only applies to acts of Congress and no one ele. In Ann Coulter's fantasy world, the police can't violate your Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure because a warrantless search isn't an act of Congress, government agents can't violate your First Amendment rights of free speech because those agents' actions aren't a law, and the ATF can't violate your Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms because their seizure of your guns doesn't involve Congress.
Well, that's enough for this time - I don't want to embarrass Ann any further. Everyone has problems with reality and so it's only natural that, at times, fantasy will be preferable. But Ann's gone so far off the deep end that I hope she gets treatment soon.
Read More:
Comments
its really funny that no one commented…probably because no one agrees with you. Sorry, but thats just “reality”
Or no one disagrees.
Well, if you disagree, why don’t you offer a substantive to my arguments.
Coulter and the rest of us Christians are living in reality because Coulter and the rest of us Christians do not deny the reality and the logical and analytical evidence that there is a God governing the universe. But you Bastard atheists are living in a fantasy world and are incapable of logical and analytical thinking for denying the logical and analytical evidence that there is a God governing the universe.
Ann Coulter is so outragsous and she exaggerataes enough be considered a plain and simple crook. She feeds on the lazy cowards that make up the Republican party.
Michael said:
…logical and analytical evidence
…logical and analytical thinking
…logical and analytical evidence”
Do you actually have any logic based and analytical evidence to present (if so, please do), or are you just hoping repetition will somehow convince someone that you know what you’re talking about?
Michael @ #3: I am completely unaware of the type of logic you are employing in your post. Typically, name-calling and sweeping generalizations are not considered elements of a logical argument. Then again, I don’t live in crazyland.
I just love those responses… ROFL. Obviously the Coulter followers are infected with the same disease.
I always love the name calling.
“you Bastards!”
ROFL
Peace
TK
Michael says:
“But you Bastard atheists….”
Spoken like a true christian!
Xtians should consider “Bastard” a compliment. Their Jesus is a bastard; the Ghost and Mary were not united in “Holy matrimony”.
Oh, I just didn’t get around to it until now. I couldn’t agree more. Anne Coulter is an embarrassment to the human race, never mind republicans, conservatives, christians, etc.
She’s a hateful, money grubbing, attention seeking waste of skin that has nothing of value to say and her only interest is selling her books.
Every time she opens her mouth a kitten dies and someone kicks a puppy.
The only thing wrong with what Austin wrote was he is far, far too polite when it comes to that waste of skin. I have a website dedicated just for the people of fox www. sean douchebaghannity .com so you can be as nasty as they are.
Every nation has its imbeciles but it seems that the U S A is unique in encouraging them.
Doesn’t say much for the sane.
Isn’t this from early 2002? Do you really not have anything new, fresh or interesting?
Only second rate people admire malicious bullies. Most Republicans seem to prefer lying, bullying, and stealing as a way of life.
Here’s the whole quote, from National Review, 9/13/2001, http://www.nationalreview.com/coulter/coulter.shtml:
“We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren’t punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That’s war. And this is war.”
It’s true she is a dimwit. Your further point is not true, i.e. that Anne Coulter is a dimwit therefore no god is real. If anything, you’ve given her a little more publicity, and shown that you have nothing to say.
Yes.
Yes.
No one has made any such claim.
I have said that she can’t get her facts straight, and that’s not nothing.
Still doesn’t make sense. We all know Coulter’s a fraud. This blog is supposed to be about atheism.
Your further point is not true, i.e. that Anne Coulter is a dimwit therefore no god is real.
No one has made any such claim.
Then what’s the article doing here? More information about this woman’s lack of integrity I didn’t need.
And one of the topics this site covers is church/state separation.
Because it is addressing Coulter’s attempt to defend Roy Moore’s Ten Commandments monument.
Do you really imagine that any time someone is criticized here, it must be to try the prove the “point” that “god is not real”? That would make absolutely no sense whatsoever.
Then you could skip it and move on to the next blog post or article.
“And one of the topics this site covers is church/state separation.”
OK, but the article mentions separation of church & state only in passing, the rest is fluff about a FoxNews celebrity. Most of the religious people I know strongly favor separation (they don’t want religious instruction in public schools because they do it badly). A poll of people in Israel I saw said Israelis strongly favor separation. A mixed bag of numbers is here: http://www.religioustolerance.org/rt_israel.htm
It’s obviously a big point of contention in Israel. But it’s not accurate to say irreligious people are for separation and religious people are against it.
No, actually the entire piece is about Coulter’s supporter of Moore’s monument — specifically, how poor her argument in defense of it was. I point out, in a sarcastic way, just what would be entailed if we took her nonsense position seriously. What’s actually mentioned only in passing is the fact that such poor reasoning is typical for her rather than an aberration on this one issue.
Good for you, but it’s obviously not true about substantial portion of the American population.
The feelings of Israelis are hardly relevant in this article. It’s curious that you would bring it up, since you were trying to complain about material which isn’t relevant to this site.
And who, exactly, has made that claim — about Israel or any other nation?
This is a piss-poor argument. It’s not the dividing line you think it is.
Zora: Most of the religious people I know strongly favor separation
Austin: Good for you, but it’s obviously not true about substantial portion of the American population.
Thanks for the sneering agreement, and you’re dead wrong about ’substantial portion of the American population.’ Let’s see some non-anecdotal evidence. By the way, the tone and quality of your writing is worse than hers. If you have anything to say, it’s buried in pissy resentment.
What argument, exactly, is “piss-poor” and why? It doesn’t really say much to merely claim that some unidentified argument is poor if you aren’t going to bother to even say what argument you’re referring to, never mind what’s wrong with it.
I haven’t suggested any dividing lines.
It’s not “sneering” agreement, I’m happy that the religious people around you support separation. I expect you’d be unhappy if you were surrounded by religious people who opposed separation, or who simply didn’t care enough about separation to care when it is violated. It’s also not “sneering” to point out that your personal experience — which is another way of saying “anecdotal evidence,” by the way — isn’t necessarily reflective of the religious population in America as a whole.
The evidence is easy enough to find if you look for it. Religious Tolerance has a collection of results of polls of the American public, for example. The more negative results show things like 70% of people supporting Ten Commandments monuments. Even the most positive results show 22% support for church involvement in political campaigns — and I’d call nearly a quarter of the public a “substantial” portion of the public.
Harris did a poll in 2007 where 19% explicitly stated their opposition to church/state separation and 12% were neutral on the question — that’s a total of 31% failing to “strongly favor separation,” and nearly a third of the population is also definitely a “substantial portion” of the population.
Just to avoid one possible misunderstanding: my statement that “it’s not true” that a substantial portion of the American population “strongly favor separation” means that a substantial portion of the population either opposes it, doesn’t care, or only very weakly favors it. It doesn’t mean that a substantial portion of the population are somehow activists against separation. Even so, most of the results do, I think tend to show a substantial portion of the population is against separation in various ways.
Feel free to show how. Perhaps you would care to point to where I have said anything like “We should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity”?
It’s not “pissy” to point out relevant errors, like for example your false claim that most of this post was about something other than church/state separation. It’s also not “resentment” to point out an error like your suggestion that anyone had claimed “irreligious people are for separation and religious people are against it.” I notice that you didn’t respond to either point — whether to disagree or to acknowledge error. It’s interesting that instead of simply admitting that you may have misread something, you feel it necessary to attack me personally.
The unfortunate fact is that even if we pretend for a moment that you are correct — if we pretend that I’m sneering, have bad writing, and have pissy resentment, it wouldn’t really change anything on the substance of matters. What I mean is, it wouldn’t change how you’ve misread things and it wouldn’t change the fact that a substantial portion of the American population does not “strongly favor” church/state separation. It also wouldn’t change how poor Ann Coulters argument above is, which is ostensibly the topic here.
This is why such ad hominem attacks and arguments are a logical fallacy. You can’t defend your own position by attacking my character and you can’t critique my position by attacking my character — even when those attacks are 100% true. I could be a lying, thieving, cheating, child abuser and it wouldn’t either bolster the truth of your claims or undermine the truth of my claims.
You’ll notice that I’ve not made any comments about your character. I’ve been critical of your errors and some things you’ve written, but not at all about you as a person. What I think about your character or person is irrelevant. In fact, it’s so irrelevant that it’s not even worth trying to form an opinion about them. All that’s important is to address the substantive of the claims you make and the validity of the reasoning/evidence behind them.
This of course raises the question of why you would do this.
The feelings of Israelis are hardly relevant in this article. It’s curious that you would bring it up, since you were trying to complain about material which isn’t relevant to this site.
It’s relevant because most people think of Israel as some sort of theocracy. It’s counterintuitive, and instructive, that Israelis have strong religious allegiances and they value separation of church and state.
The wish for some sort of theocratic state in the US is a myth, so far as I can see.
Do they? I’ve never seen such an opinion expressed. I suppose some must think it, but “most”?
Apparently you’re unfamiliar with Christian Reconstructionism and Dominion Theology.
Apparently you’re unfamiliar with Christian Reconstructionism and Dominion Theology.
You’re way ahead of me on fringe American religious movements. And before you tell me they’re mainstream, I almost certainly spend more time with relatively mainstream Christian groups than you do, and I’ve never heard of either one.
I didn’t claim that they are mainstream, but their leaders and organizations have not only wielded a lot of power, but they have steadily been growing in behind-the-scenes influence in “mainstream” conservative organizations over the past couple of decades.
The point of my reply, though, was to note that it’s not in fact a “myth” that there is a “wish for some sort of theocratic state in the US.” Dominion Theology and Christian Reconstructionism are not myths and while their views are “out there,” their influence is more widespread than most realize.