Not Totally Idiotic Article by Ms. Coulter

John Uskglass

Venerable Relic of the Wastes
W.W.J.K.: WHO WOULD JESUS KILL?

Wed Mar 10, 6:22 PM ET
Add Op/Ed - Ann Coulter to My Yahoo!

By Ann Coulter

William Safire, The New York Times' in-house "conservative" -- who endorsed Bill Clinton (news - web sites) in 1992, like so many conservatives -- was sure Mel Gibson's movie "The Passion of the Christ" would incite anti-Semitic violence. Thus far, the pogroms have failed to materialize.


With all the subtlety of a Mack truck, Safire called Gibson's movie a version of "the medieval 'passion play,' preserved in pre-Hitler Germany at Oberammergau, a source of the hatred of all Jews as 'Christ killers.'" (Certainly every Aryan Nation skinhead murderer I've ever met was also a devoted theater buff and "passion play" aficionado.)

The "passion play" has been put on in Germany since at least 1633. I guess 1633 would be "pre-Hitler." In addition, Moses walked the Earth "pre-Hitler." The wheel was invented "pre-Hitler." People ate soup "pre-Hitler." Referring to the passion play as "pre-Hitler" is a slightly fancier version of every adolescent's favorite argument: You're like Hitler!

Despite repeated suggestions from liberals -- including the in-house "conservative" and Clinton-supporter at the Times -- Hitler is not what happens when you gin up Christians. Like Timothy McVeigh (news - web sites), the Columbine killers and the editorial board of The New York Times, Hitler detested Christians.

Indeed, Hitler denounced Christianity as an "invention of the Jew" and vowed that the "organized lie (of Christianity) must be smashed" so that the state would "remain the absolute master." Interestingly, this was the approach of all the great mass murderers of the last century -- all of whom were atheists: Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot.

In the United States, more than 30 million babies have been killed by abortion since Roe v. Wade (news - web sites), vs. seven abortion providers killed. Yeah -- keep your eye on those Christians!

But according to liberals, it's Christianity that causes murder. (And don't get them started on Zionism.) Like their Muslim friends still harping about the Crusades, liberals won't "move on" from the Spanish Inquisition. In the entire 350 years of the Spanish Inquisition, about 30,000 people were killed. That's an average of less than 100 a year. Stalin knocked off that many kulaks before breakfast.

But Safire argues that viewers of "The Passion" will see the Jewish mob and think: "Who was responsible for this cruel humiliation? What villain deserves to be punished?"

Let's see: It was a Roman who ordered Christ's execution, and Romans who did all the flaying, taunting and crucifying. Perhaps Safire is indulging in his own negative stereotyping about Jews by assuming they simply viewed Romans as "the help."

But again I ask: Does anyone at the Times have the vaguest notion what Christianity is? (Besides people who go around putting up nativity scenes that have to be taken down by court order?) The religion that toppled the Roman Empire -- anyone?

Jesus' suffering and death is not a Hatfields-and-McCoys story demanding retaliation. The gist of the religion that transformed the world is: God's only son came to Earth to take the punishment we deserved.

If the Jews had somehow managed to block Jesus' crucifixion and He had died in old age of natural causes, there would be no salvation through Christ and no Christianity. Whatever possible responses there may be to that story, this is not one of them: Damn those Jews for being a part of God's plan to save my eternal soul!

Gibson didn't insert Jews into the story for some Machiavellian, racist reason. Christ was a Jew crucified by Romans at the request of other Jews in Jerusalem. I suppose if Gibson had moved the story to suburban Cleveland and portrayed Republican logging executives crucifying Christ, the left would calm down. But it simply didn't happen that way.

Of course, the original text is no excuse in Hollywood. The villains of Tom Clancy's book "The Sum of All Fears" were recently transformed from Muslim terrorists to neo-Nazis for the movie version. You wouldn't want to upset the little darlings. They might do something rash like slaughter 3,000 innocent American civilians in a single day. The only religion that can be constantly defamed and insulted is the one liberals pretend to be terrified of.
 
all of whom were atheists: Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot.
*sigh* This is where it shows what this article is: an pro-Christian, prejudiced article. Bah. What this woman is trying to say here is "It's not Christians that cause murders, but atheists" and she's strongly implying that atheism LEADS to murder. Bah./

In the United States, more than 30 million babies have been killed by abortion since Roe v. Wade (news - web sites), vs. seven abortion providers killed. Yeah -- keep your eye on those Christians!
And this also shows why this article is a one-sided article. It says "killed by abortion" while "only" secen abortion providers were killed...
In other words, she's simply assuming that everyone will agree that abortion=killing, and not the termination of a pre-sentient being as many see it.
Furthermore, she's almost justifying the murder of those seven abortion providers.
Yeah, you Christians, you don't want lives to be wasted, so go kill some people!

But according to liberals, it's Christianity that causes murder. (And don't get them started on Zionism.) Like their Muslim friends still harping about the Crusades, liberals won't "move on" from the Spanish Inquisition. In the entire 350 years of the Spanish Inquisition, about 30,000 people were killed. That's an average of less than 100 a year. Stalin knocked off that many kulaks before breakfast.
Yep. And they won't get over it because for the Spanish inquisition, Christianity was a reason for killing. While Stalin's reasons were merely "Me wants power."
The religion that toppled the Roman Empire
...
Stupid....
Of course, the original text is no excuse in Hollywood. The villains of Tom Clancy's book "The Sum of All Fears" were recently transformed from Muslim terrorists to neo-Nazis for the movie version. You wouldn't want to upset the little darlings. They might do something rash like slaughter 3,000 innocent American civilians in a single day. The only religion that can be constantly defamed and insulted is the one liberals pretend to be terrified of.
And offensive.

That said, I have to say that I agree that the notion that "passion of the christ" is somehow anti-semitic is a rather silly one.
 
I'm an atheist...MUST KILL MUST KILL MUST KILL MUST KILL!!!!

Sorry, our brain implanted networking chips are giving those commands again...sorry. :roll:

Let's face it, the Romans killed Jesus because they viewed him as a religious leader who threatened their religion and order in that area.
 
Lets face it... Agnostics dont care... so why worry about why the man jesus was killed... he died just as every other human died.. alone..

Just go on living as well as you know how. What happens after you die happens. Right now were alive, focus on that.
 
That woman is a bigot with the narrow mind of a mule. No,no, I'm sorry. I didn't mean to insult the mules by comparing her to them.
 
It is so convenient to always blame other people for things but it is we who did it. We killed a visionary who was a man ahead of his time (or any time), all the insights were those of humanity. Not word of God or work of the devil but the works of Mankind.

The article is seriously flawed and biased as said above, but is still useful as are all views.
 
Why should it be unbiased? It's not a research paper, you morons, it's an opinion piece. Maybe you should judge it AS an opinion piece?
Seriously, if every liberal conspiracy geek is as intolerant as you are, I'm glad you are not in power. That'd be worse than Hitler.
 
Why should it be unbiased? It's not a research paper, you morons, it's an opinion piece. Maybe you should judge it AS an opinion piece?
Seriously, if every liberal conspiracy geek is as intolerant as you are, I'm glad you are not in power. That'd be worse than Hitler.
So you're saying that whenever something is said in an article that we disagree with, we should just not talk about it? Oh, goodie....

Come on, APTYP, this article is a biased article, yes, it is an offensive article, yes, so we say something about that. It doesn't matter that it's an opinons article or whatever, that does not change anything about what is said in it.

EDIT: You actually said worse than Hitler??
Do you even know one small thing about what Hitler stood for, what he did, and what he believed? :evil:
 
Article said:
a slightly fancier version of every adolescent's favorite argument: You're like Hitler!
APTYP said:
I'm glad you are not in power. That'd be worse than Hitler
Anyone care to draw any parallels here?
(unless that's what you were aiming at APTYP)
 
Didn't say you shouldn't talk about it. The reason why I was annoyed is because I've seen too many instances where someone would give a link to a text that contains a certain idea that the poster agreed with, and then everyone would reply with their text reviews. Which totally misses the point. In ideal world what should've been evaluated is the arguments that the author presents to support her main idea, not punitive attacks and wild rants. Now, if a text claims to be objective and unbiased, then there's every reason to criticize that. Coulter piece is "by Christian, for Christians".
 
8 young people are faced with the most unspeakable killing force ever seen on planet Earth. Jesus Christ. Warped by two thousand years of vengeful anticipation, the son of God finally gets his chance to take out his anger on the human race. When a young man inadvertently resurrects a long dead Christ in the basement of a bowling alley, everyone in the building must fight for survival against a bloodthirsty killer hell bent on slaughtering them all. They will have to use their wits, stamina and instincts to live through this terrifying ordeal. As Jesus grows stronger, he will hunt down all who cross his path with unconditional brutality and wrath. He will stop at nothing to exact his vengeance upon those who he deems unworthy of life. He will show humanity what a horrifying thing the resurrection of Christ can be. The world knows too well what Jesus is like when he is placid. Now they will know what he is like when he gets angry. A bunch of weird stuff happens too

Jesus Christ!!! Mel Gibson's "Passion 2 The resurrection" is going to be another blockbuster too....

http://polterchrist.com/ Thanks for the link Nomad.[/quote]
 
Ann Coulter is the most likely canidate for the worst republican award. If here and Bill O'Rielly had a baby, it would be the anti-christ.
 
APTYP said:
Why should it be unbiased? It's not a research paper, you morons, it's an opinion piece. Maybe you should judge it AS an opinion piece?

Biased arguments/ opinions are weak. Sure you can have an opinion and write an article about it, but it is flawed if you don’t take another point of view into consideration. Your opinion is much stronger if you manage to “disprove” the opposing view.
 
Didn't say you shouldn't talk about it. The reason why I was annoyed is because I've seen too many instances where someone would give a link to a text that contains a certain idea that the poster agreed with, and then everyone would reply with their text reviews. Which totally misses the point. In ideal world what should've been evaluated is the arguments that the author presents to support her main idea, not punitive attacks and wild rants. Now, if a text claims to be objective and unbiased, then there's every reason to criticize that. Coulter piece is "by Christian, for Christians".
Indeed, APTYP. But CCR posted this article on this forum, which means that people who would normally never read, now read it. Which means that they'll simply point out all of the mistakes that are made in the article.

Of course, if you start whining about it being biased and don't say anything else, you're not doing too well.
 
The topic, if I may quote it, is "Not Totally Idiotic Article ..." It's practically an invitation to ponder over the valid points presented in the article. What everyone seems to be thinking here is that CCR posted the article to praise Christian journalism. It's pointless, because CCR obviously shares your criticism of the article. So why bother?
 
Back
Top