Do Jews Need to be ‘Perfected’? Ann Coulter Thinks So
Wednesday, October 17, 2007 at 9:49 am
- 18 Comments
Before Jews can enter heaven, they need to ditch the Old Testament, completely put their faith in to the New Testament and “be perfected,” Ann Coulter said in a recent interview with CNBC’s “The Big Idea.”
Here’s a Youtube video of that interview.
And, oh yeah, heaven looks like “New York City during the Republican National Convention… [people are] happy, Christians, tolerant.”When the host, Donny Deutsch, who’s Jewish, asked Coulter if, in her utopian world, she would want everyone to be Christian, she not only affirmed that, but accused him of being a non-practicing Jew and said that he’d be better off being a Christian.
“It’s a lot easier [to be Christian]…it’s kind of a fast-track,” she said sarcastically.
This prompted Deutsch, who said he’s indeed a practicing Jew, to point out that Coulter is really not that different from the president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who wants to wipe Israel off the map. “I’m offended by that personally,” he said.
So have many people been offended by Coulter. This is the same woman who called Al Gore and John Edwards a “total fag” and a “faggot,” respectively. Don’t you think that there’s something remarkably unchristian about her mean spirits?
Coulter might be everyone’s provocateur, but her anti-Semitic remark is a microcosm of a larger phenomenon: A group of extreme right-wing Republicans on a mission to Christianize America. Jews are their soft, long-term target. Once they evangelize everyone else, they hope to convince Jews to speed along on that “fast track” terrain.
But what’s really striking is that there have been no major outcries about Coulter’s nonsensical comments. This is the kind of tirade that conservative media outlets and blogs would feast upon, if it was uttered by none other than one of their own.
Recall that whole Desmond Tutu episode from last week: Unlike Coulter, he never cast aspersions on Judaism as a faith and Jews as people, but criticized Israel. He was denied an opportunity to speak at a Catholic university, which allowed Coulter to speak. Of course, St. Thomas eventually did the right thing and reversed its decision.
It’s hard enough to mention Coulter and Tutu in the same breath, yet the very right-wing Republicans who mostly drove the anti-Tutu campaign all over the world are embracing Coulter. She remains their star speaker in college campuses and other gatherings.
It begs the question: Where do they want to take America? At a time when the U.S. is rapidly becoming more diverse then ever, the Coulter camp has embarked on a mission to turn the clock backward.
Alas, this rogue woman has plenty of supporters.
18 Comments
Comment posted October 17, 2007 @ 11:44 am
I always love it . . . . . . when nonjews tell us not only what should and shouldn’t offend us, but helpfully titrate the precise amount of offense we should take.
Beyond that, ever helpful:
It begs the question: Where do they want to take America?
Well, no, it doesn’t. Granted, that’s a common misuse of “beg the question,” but such a common misuse is, perhaps, something a New Journalistic Fella like yourself should abjure, and if you’re not quite up to it, that’s what editors are for.
But, then again, there seems to be some problems with the editorial process for at least one NJF here — after all, you’re apparently still of the opinion that Tutu is an academic who was denied tenure at St. Thomas.
Comment posted October 17, 2007 @ 11:59 am
Titrate? I abjure your use of titrate in this case, Joel, and suggest maybe you’ve got your own misuse problems to worry about. ;)
Comment posted October 17, 2007 @ 12:31 pm
I’m sure you don’t speak for all Jews At least not for the ADL, which issued a strong-worded statement:
As non-Jew, I, too, am offended by Coulter’s Christian crusade. If you read my column carefully, you would have discerned that Coulter’s latest assault on Jews is part of a larger problem. So I’m not trying to defend any particular denomenation; I’m detested with the notion that all Americans should be Christianized.
Meanwhile, you could freely chose to not be offended by Coulter’s anti-Semitic comments, and be totally engulfed in anger by Tutu’s criticism of Israel.
Comment posted October 17, 2007 @ 12:36 pm
Ann Coulter is Michele Bachmann’s hero From an online interview dated April 26, 2006, at http://thewindbeneat…
Q: Are there and political figures whom you admire, living or dead?
Michele Bachmann: “Well, Ronald Reagan is my hero. In the terms of modern presidency, Ronald Reagan has been a tremendous hero of mine, as has Ann Coulter. I just adore Ann Coulter.”
I wonder if Bachmann tried to “perfect” any Jews on her and hubby Marcus’ recent trip to Israel, which AIPAC’s “educational” arm spent nearly $18,000 on for the Bachmanns alone.
Comment posted October 17, 2007 @ 1:58 pm
Thank you . . . . . . for the advice on word usage; I think it was utterly cromulent, and if you feel it embiggens you, perhaps you’re sufficiently skrelmish to be on the staff of the Minnesota Montiro.
Comment posted October 17, 2007 @ 2:00 pm
Well, at least we’ve got that straight. If the ADL takes offense on behalf of Jews, then nonjews are entitled to take offense on behalf of Jews, too. Got it; Minnie Mon New Journalistic Fella journalismo at its, well, typical.
As to the notion that it’s anti-Semitic for Christians to believe — and say — that they think that nonChristians should convert to Christianity, would you carve out a special exception for Muslims, say, or would that apply to them, too?
Comment posted October 17, 2007 @ 4:25 pm
Speaking of taking offense . . . . . . I think I’ll take offense at you suggesting that we’re a “soft . . . target.” As those who have tried to covert us from Mohammed to Luther — and before and after — have found, it doesn’t work that way.
In practice, it’s the liberal left rather than the Christian right who tends to think and talk about Jews as though they own our consciences — take that Tutu fellow — you know: one who won the same award that the terrorist Arafat did.
Comment posted October 17, 2007 @ 6:57 pm
What’s the connection between Tutu & Arafat? Besides winning the Nobel, the two couldn’t be different.
And, oh yeah, that “terrorist” Arafat frequented at the White House more than most other modern leaders.
Comment posted October 18, 2007 @ 7:26 am
Springtime for Arafat Yup, he sure did frequent at (sic) the White House– during the Clinton administration. Those Gentiles who wish to instruct Jews on what to and not to take offense and are trying to suggest that Jews owe fealty to the left probably shouldn’t be reminding us of that.
At least, not until President Clinton is elected.
Just a hint.
But you’re quite right — Arafat was a terrorist; Tutu merely alternates between turning a blind eye to terrorism, excusing it, and minimizing it.
All for the greater good, of course.
Comment posted October 17, 2007 @ 6:44 am
I always love it . . . . . . when nonjews tell us not only what should and shouldn't offend us, but helpfully titrate the precise amount of offense we should take.
Beyond that, ever helpful:
It begs the question: Where do they want to take America?
Well, no, it doesn't. Granted, that's a common misuse of “beg the question,” but such a common misuse is, perhaps, something a New Journalistic Fella like yourself should abjure, and if you're not quite up to it, that's what editors are for.
But, then again, there seems to be some problems with the editorial process for at least one NJF here — after all, you're apparently still of the opinion that Tutu is an academic who was denied tenure at St. Thomas.
Comment posted October 17, 2007 @ 6:59 am
Titrate? I abjure your use of titrate in this case, Joel, and suggest maybe you've got your own misuse problems to worry about. ;)
Comment posted October 17, 2007 @ 7:31 am
I'm sure you don't speak for all Jews At least not for the ADL, which issued a strong-worded statement:
As non-Jew, I, too, am offended by Coulter's Christian crusade. If you read my column carefully, you would have discerned that Coulter's latest assault on Jews is part of a larger problem. So I'm not trying to defend any particular denomenation; I'm detested with the notion that all Americans should be Christianized.
Meanwhile, you could freely chose to not be offended by Coulter's anti-Semitic comments, and be totally engulfed in anger by Tutu's criticism of Israel.
Comment posted October 17, 2007 @ 7:36 am
Ann Coulter is Michele Bachmann's hero From an online interview dated April 26, 2006, at http://thewindbeneat…
Q: Are there and political figures whom you admire, living or dead?
Michele Bachmann: “Well, Ronald Reagan is my hero. In the terms of modern presidency, Ronald Reagan has been a tremendous hero of mine, as has Ann Coulter. I just adore Ann Coulter.”
I wonder if Bachmann tried to “perfect” any Jews on her and hubby Marcus' recent trip to Israel, which AIPAC's “educational” arm spent nearly $18,000 on for the Bachmanns alone.
Comment posted October 17, 2007 @ 8:58 am
Thank you . . . . . . for the advice on word usage; I think it was utterly cromulent, and if you feel it embiggens you, perhaps you're sufficiently skrelmish to be on the staff of the Minnesota Montiro.
Comment posted October 17, 2007 @ 9:00 am
Well, at least we've got that straight. If the ADL takes offense on behalf of Jews, then nonjews are entitled to take offense on behalf of Jews, too. Got it; Minnie Mon New Journalistic Fella journalismo at its, well, typical.
As to the notion that it's anti-Semitic for Christians to believe — and say — that they think that nonChristians should convert to Christianity, would you carve out a special exception for Muslims, say, or would that apply to them, too?
Comment posted October 17, 2007 @ 11:25 am
Speaking of taking offense . . . . . . I think I'll take offense at you suggesting that we're a “soft . . . target.” As those who have tried to covert us from Mohammed to Luther — and before and after — have found, it doesn't work that way.
In practice, it's the liberal left rather than the Christian right who tends to think and talk about Jews as though they own our consciences — take that Tutu fellow — you know: one who won the same award that the terrorist Arafat did.
Comment posted October 17, 2007 @ 1:57 pm
What's the connection between Tutu & Arafat? Besides winning the Nobel, the two couldn't be different.
And, oh yeah, that “terrorist” Arafat frequented at the White House more than most other modern leaders.
Comment posted October 18, 2007 @ 2:26 am
Springtime for Arafat Yup, he sure did frequent at (sic) the White House– during the Clinton administration. Those Gentiles who wish to instruct Jews on what to and not to take offense and are trying to suggest that Jews owe fealty to the left probably shouldn't be reminding us of that.
At least, not until President Clinton is elected.
Just a hint.
But you're quite right — Arafat was a terrorist; Tutu merely alternates between turning a blind eye to terrorism, excusing it, and minimizing it.
All for the greater good, of course.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
