What did they hear? The only thing they heard was of an offensive nature. Don’t you think that if you want to communicate to someone, that you would have a better chance at healthy communication and dialogue when you don’t offennd someone unnecissarily (and I think the Cartoons, Coulter, and some of the otehr commentators unnecessarily offend people)?

I believe, too, that anyone that finds the cartoons offensive, or thinks that Islam is justified for thinking they are offensive, does not understand the cartoons. I have posted at length about this; some of the links I’ve provided even discuss the validity (from two Muslims’ perspectives) of depicting Muhammed in art and with humor.

Here’s the bottom line on this issue: The cartoons are not about Islam or Muhammed at all; they are about distortions of both, the gross distortions prevalent today. Coulter takes aim at the West’s PC blindness to this fact; and she scoffs at those who prove by their actions that the cartoons are right.

She scoffs the way a good prophet would scoff; for otherwise people may not hear what is true. Hard language is sometimes the only language people can hear, sort of like the language which is those cartoons.

Peace.

I understand why the Muslim world is upset. I understand why Christians become upset when there values are offeneded or threatened. But violence will never bring resolution, whether that violence is in the form of street rioting and rebellion or that violence is in the form of military action and guided missles.

God help us all because we (the entire world) fails miserably to live the way we were created to live life.

Read Ann Coulter’s column for yourself. To be honest, I think it takes some courage to write this way — more courage than I have.

Your answer is an excellent one, and your questions are important. But let me defend at least one thing: I tried to place Jesus’ “white-washed tombs” remark in context, and I believe his listeners would have found it very offensive. And I don’t think Paul was all that gentle; I believe he was considered (or would have been considered) abrasive. His Galatians remark is telling.

I am glad that you are back, by the way. You seemed to have taken a hiatus, which is more than OK. I hope all is well.

Peace,

Gnade

I understand and appreciate your concerns. However I think it is to simplistic to say that because Jesus called the Pharisees a “brood of vipers” that we understand perfectly his intent and the connotations being used by Jesus. Further more, the difference in culture is important. Some of the ways in which Jesus acted were as a result of the culture he was living in and therefore we must understand the prinicple rather than simply tranfering the literal act into our own culture. This calls for discernment. Simply prooftexting something Jesus said in order to justify us saying/doing the same thing in the same exact manner within our own culture fails to ask what was Jesus’ intent and rationale, it fails to consider a first century b.c. Jewish/Greco-Roman culture, and it fails to interpret a particular passage within the entire biblical and theological context.

We should also remember that is was Jesus who said those words, which I am confidnet that Jesus had a much better idea of how to be holy in his speech than I do.

The bottom line is this, does Ann Coulter and the others (on both the right and left) who resort to what I would call an “immature and mean spirited rhetoric” reflect the love of God and neighbor with their speech? WOuld those who use such rhetoric want to be spoken to with the same words and thoughts themselves (the Golden Rule)?

Jesus’ “white-washed tombs” has what “loving” value? From what my theology profs taught me, Jesus’ remark was positively harsh in an R-rated sense. And there is nothing gentle about Paul’s wish for the slipping of the knife; there is hardly anything loving about it.

Should I speak lovingly to the face of evil; should I always speak gently to the face of what is false and yet parades as true, deceiving others? Should I always speak kindly to those who steer people towards idolatry? Is sarcasm off-limits for Christians? Is mockery wrong if I am mocking the celebration of perversity on late-night TV? Were not the prophets brutal in their criticism; and did not they even make their followers uncomfortable?

I believe that Ann Coulter weakens her arguments with the zingers she drops. But not all of her zingers are reprehensible, nor do they always miss their mark. She is remarkably right most of the time (imperfectly, of course).

Peace always,

There is no humor to be found in statement that wish for evil things to happen on someone else, whether the speaker intended the statement to be taken in a joking manner or not!

Is Ann Coulter sincere? Does she really mean it when she writes, as she did this week re: Alito and the Senate,“Bill Frist was afraid of what the Democrats might do, so he backed down. Scary Democrats! And not just Joe Biden’s hair plugs – all of them were scary to Sen. Frist!”?

Is this mean spirited? Is she vicious? Or is this just a legitimate point couched in hyperbole in order to entertain, and to turn the tables on the the snarky folks on the other side of the issue? Is there no legitimacy, ever, in being vitriolic, sarcastic, bombastic? What of Jesus’ “whitewashed tombs” remark, or his “brood of vipers?” Not very politic, I should think, and he surely did not mean his words to be taken literally. (And if he did not want to be taken literally in these moments, how then did he want us to understand him?) What about St. Paul, in his epistle to the Galatians, wishing that the Judaizers would slip with their knives and cut their own genitals off? Nice speech? Godly? Loving of one’s neighbor? Turning the other cheek? I don’t think so.

Perhaps I am defending Coulter because of her legs. I have read three of her books; she is good at what she does. Sarcasm is her gift, perhaps. She’s sort of like a white blood cell coursing through the bloodstream, ripping to shreds anything that causes infection. Most of us have different gifts; most of us would not want hers.

Anyhow, just thought I’d try to defend a sister.

Gnade

Bill O’Reilly is supposed to be “Fair and Balanced” but anyone who listens to him knows that he leans one way as well.

When it comes down to it, balance is a noble quest but one that is very hard to obtain. We all gravitate to one direction or the other. I presonally claim that I want to be simply “Christian” and not a “Democratic Christian” or a “Republican Christian.” While I do recognize that there is certain problems with the Democratic views (as well as the Republican views), I cannot help escape the fact that I was raised by staunch Democrat Parents. So while I try to be above Democrat or Republican, I still lean towards the left side more when it comes to the social-political world.

Here is something funny. I am a man torn about. I was raised in a staunch Democrat family and married a girl who was raised in a staunch Republican family. So when we visit each of the families (where there is always a lot of political discussion taking place), we simply say to our faimly, “We just heard that argument being made but it was not aimed at the Republicans but instead at the Democrats (and vise versa).”

The funny thing about your list of names is that one of those, Anderson Cooper, is supposed to be an “objective reporter.” The rest are news analysts who are paid to inject their opinion into the coverage. Cooper, who works for CNN, is supposed to be objective - but anyone who has watched AC360 (and it’s really not that many people) knows he leans one way…

Good point.

I think there is a way to speak candidly and critically and still remain professional in communication, whether the speaker is a liberal or conservative. It is my opinion that people like James Carville and Ann Coulter just help further polarize the social-political community rather than speaking in such a way that might lead toward resolution rather than fragmentation.

So what is an example of candid and critical that refrains from using unprofessional (and dare I say) immoral/unethical rhetoric?

Well I certainly think this blog generally seems to be such an example, although it is different when our communication is limited to the typed word only. But here are some news anchors who I think are good examples, Anderson Cooper, Nancy Grace, Rita Crosby, Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, Allen Combs, to name a few

Are you talking about James Carville?

I don’t know who the tall, skinny, bald guy might be. Could it be Bill Maher (he’s surely nasty)? But he doesn’t shave his head, and I think he’s pretty short. Plus, he’s not a “media” guy, really. Hmm. You’ve got me stumped. A tall bald guy, eh? Could it be Mr. Clean?

Peace and laughter,

Gnade

Of course that would require us all to recognize that this sort of vivid rhetoric has always and will always be part of robust political discourse. And robust political discourse in a free society is a lot better than the alternative.

I guess their is a point to make and that point is, when you stand on the left side you GENERALLY are only able to see the faults of the right side — and naturally when you stand on the right side you GENERALLY are only able to see the faults of the left side.

That’s shouldn’t be to surprising since we’re all humans.

Any ways, who is the tall skinny bald-headed (he shaves his head completely) liberal media person? Do you know who I am talking about, I would recognize his name if I saw it. He recently called for the impeachment of President Bush?

The reason I am asking is he seems to be one of the media people on the left that uses flametory, unprofessional rhetoric against the right side — someone who sound a lot like Ann Coulter but just on the other side of the fence.

Laughingly,

BG