32 Replies to “New Jersey Democrats Want Coulter’s Book Banned

  1. 1
    Chris Hyland says:

    Are they just making a statement saying they think it shouldn’t be sold, or are they actually trying to get it officially banned somehow? If it’s the former then they have as much right to voice their opinions as she does hers, if the latter is possible you Americans have some weird laws.

  2. 2
    russ says:

    Looks to me like they’re trying to get booksellers to voluntarily withdraw the book, not pass a law.

    This is already done unofficially to other conservative titles. It’s usually done by local bookstore employees who bury the book under other books or missfile them in the wrong section so they can’t be found.

  3. 3
    tribune7 says:

    Here’s their press release as it is of this posting: http://politics.nexcess.net/pr......html#more

    An earlier version, however, apparently did use the word “ban” http://www.sweetness-light.com.....ulter-book

  4. 4
    jerry says:

    Ann must be paying these woman off. You cannot buy this good publicity. The best thing for the book would be rallies outside the book stores against the book and it will then sell millions. Her best effort so far is about 400,000 so it will be interesting to watch this.

    The Jersey Girls must love it too because they will be back on the talk show circuit again.

  5. 5
    Atom says:

    I understand the support Coulter has given against Darwinsim in this new book and I’m thankful for it. But I feel uncomfortable with this site’s endorsement of someone as polarizing as her. The ID movement is science and as such is apolitical. To couple it with Right Wing ideology would be a mistake in my estimate. If I remember correctly, a recent poll showed that roughly half of Democrats question Darwinism. It would be unwise to alienate these Left-leaning potential allies for a bit of expedient publicity provided by Coulter.

    I also understand that most of the support for ID comes from the Right Wing currently; but that is no reason to only court Right Wing adherents. Plenty of people on the Left are not materialists, I know this from experience with the more “spiritual” among them.

    So, I guess I would just caution painting this blog into the corner of “Right Wing Mouthpiece”, when science is neither Right Wing or Left Wing. Remember, the best way to diffuse stereotypes (“ID is just Right Wing propaganda and ideology masquerading as science”) is to not feed into them.

    I already said I’d welcome Hillary Clinton’s support of ID. In the meantime I’m not going to bite my tongue when a famous conservative throws in with us. -ds

  6. 6
    leebowman says:

    Liberalism does not equate with secularism or materialism, sorry Ann. Her stereotypical view of the left is just that: stereotypical. If Ann is a role model for Conservatism, look for the right to cringe a little. See the problem with labels?

    Why am I talking about the left and the right in a detached way? Cause I’m neither. I’m a thinker. Wikipedia defines liberalism as “seek(ing) a society characterized by freedom of thought for individuals, limitations on power, especially of government and religion, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market economy that supports relatively free private enterprise, and a transparent system of government in which the rights of minorities are guaranteed.” Is that all bad? I’m sure Ann would disagree with those qualifiers, and may write to Wikipedia with a changed definition.

    But I’m getting off topic. The book, the book! Should it be banned? Hell no. Tom Jefferson would turn over in his grave. He harangued Madison to draft the Bill of Rights, and I frankly agree with the First Amendment (except the perverted ‘establishment clause)’.

    The book makes good and bad points. It spawns debate. That’s good. Thinking ahead, I understand the publisher made the book out of fireproof materials. Ann said so on Fox News. So no. Don’t ban the book. Freedom of speech is possibly our most prized possession, and the hallmark of a free society.

  7. 7
    tribune7 says:

    Seek(ing) a society characterized by freedom of thought for individuals, limitations on power, especially of government and religion, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market economy that supports relatively free private enterprise, and a transparent system of government in which the rights of minorities are guaranteed.” Is that all bad?
    No. Those things are very good.

    But you have to wonder why modern academia, the establisment press AND the Democratic Party, oppose them.

  8. 8
    jpark320 says:

    Agree w/ tribune7 here. I’m sure alot of conservatives would agree w/ that statement its like “end hunger” and “peace.” It’s true liberalism per se does not equate w/ atheism but they sure do hold hands a lot. I much prefer Coulter’s def. of them pro-abortion, pro-gay rights, criminal releasers. hahaha she cracks me up.

  9. 9
    Barrett1 says:

    Ann Coulter reminds me of Lenny Bruce, albeit clean and sober. But just as sad. Take it from me (an aging Jew), be careful with your art or life’s work.

    Are there Jews who don’t age? -ds

  10. 10
    russ says:

    As to political Liberals/Leftists supporting ID…I thought I read somewhere online that ultra-lefist Noam Chomsky of MIT used to be a Darwin skeptic, (but seems to have recanted). I would welcome his support of ID as I welcome Ann Coulter’s writings on the subject.

  11. 11
    Tiax says:

    Speaking a godless liberal, I can’t imagine banning this book just because Coulter says mean things. That’s just silly.

    Okay, so you’re against book banning. But what about book burning, ebola boy? 😛

  12. 12
    apollo230 says:

    RE: #9

    “…be careful with your art or life’s work”

    A fine phrase-very wise!

    Best regards,

    apollo230

  13. 13
    russ says:

    Ann Coulter has a political counterpart on the (anti-ID) left. Here’s an excerpt from NY Times opinion columnist Maureen Dowd, who is no less harsh than Ann Coulter. Her remarks with passing reference to evolution, are typical of her writing style:

    “The Republican Party is now a chimera, too, a mutant of old guard Republicans, who want government kept out of our lives, and evangelical Christians, who want government to legislate religion into our lives. But exploiting God for political ends has set off powerful, scary forces in America: a retreat on teaching evolution, most recently in Kansas; fights over sex education, even in the blue states and blue suburbs of Maryland; a demonizing of gays; and a fear of stem cell research, which could lead to more of a “culture of life” than keeping one vegetative woman hooked up to a feeding tube. Even as scientists issue rules on chimeras in labs, a spine-tingling he-monster with the power to drag us back into the pre-Darwinian dark ages is slouching around Washington. It’s a fire-breathing creature with the head of W., the body of Bill Frist and the serpent tail of Tom DeLay.”

  14. 14
    Barrett1 says:

    DS, now don’t start in on me. I don’t have near the wit. And yes, there’s purportedly one, but I’ve yet to meet Him. I love you guys and gals. I stop by nearly every day.

  15. 15
    Rude says:

    Just listened to “The Incorrigible Dr. Berlinski” who says, “This is a country with way too much civility …” Bravo! Great DVD from ARN! No, I don’t think it’s that M Moores and Dowds al are too loud. It’s that they’re a bunch of lying creeps. They’re treasonous bullies whose bluff oughtta be called. Logic and truth went underground in the Sixties only to hover deferentially on the sidelines. Any threat of being heard beyond a narrow constituency and the good guys are shouted down by fools. Well maybe times they are a changin’—maybe we’re overdue to move on from verse 4 to verse 5 of Proverbs 26.

    ד אַל תַּעַן כְּסִיל כְּאִוַּלְתּוֹ פֶּן תִּשְׁוֶה לּוֹ גַם אָתָּה׃
    ה עֲנֵה כְסִיל כְּאִוַּלְתּוֹ פֶּן יִהְיֶה חָכָם בְּעֵינָיו׃
    4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.
    5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

  16. 16
    GilDodgen says:

    The question of origins has nothing to do directly with left or right politics, but it does have a lot to do with one’s “world view.” Perhaps the term “life view” would be more appropriate, because one’s life view is foundational to everything that ultimately matters in life.

    If we are nothing more than the consequence of blind materialistic forces, forget everything else — we can just make it all up as we go along. This seems like a logical philosophical conclusion to me. If we are not the consequence of blind materialistic forces, we are the product of design and purpose. If this is the case, we ought to seek our purpose.

    If naturalistic processes can create Hello World computer programs and turn dirt into Mozart, then so be it. But I want a helluva lot of evidence for this before I will base my life view on such conjectures.

  17. 17
    Tiax says:

    “Okay, so you’re against book banning. But what about book burning, ebola boy?”

    Surely I would be remiss in my church-fire duties if I weren’t in favour of bible burning.

  18. 18
    Chris Hyland says:

    “If we are nothing more than the consequence of blind materialistic forces, forget everything else — we can just make it all up as we go along. This seems like a logical philosophical conclusion to me.”

    Just remember that the philosophical conclusions one may choose to draw from science have no bearing on whether or not the science is true. That is a very bad way to judge a scientific theory. And no I don’t agree that ID can be judged bad science based solely on whether or not it has religious implications.

    I always considered myself a liberal, although its not s word used much in politics in the UK, so I always went with the dictionary definition given above. From what I understand of the American political system the Democratic party might well oppose some of the definitions but I’m pretty sure the republicans would as well. Ann Coulter seems to write about how Democrat politicians are incompetent and corrupt, and people like Michael Moore write about how Republican politicians are incompetent and corrupt. Now only if somehow they could get together and write a book called ‘practically all politicians are incompetent and corrupt’, I would pay good money to read it.

  19. 19
    tribune7 says:

    Chris — if you go by the dictionary definition of “liberal” most Americans are liberal and since the GOP is actually the more “liberal” party — free markets, Christian ethics etc. — that is probably why they’ve been winning elections.

    The word, however, has become corrupt and polictical reality does not match the dictionary now.

    Check out how M-W.com defines the word: http://m-w.com/dictionary/liberalism

    For Pete’s sake, the gold standard? Pat Buchannan is more of a liberal according to that definition than Bill Clinton ever was.

    And you are right about practically all politicians.

    This from MW is fairly accurate.

    c : a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties

    One just needs to keep in mind what’s meant by these things. Progress sounds good but in many cases it isn’t. When the current policies are working there’s no need to progress to anything new. Think “experimentation” in that case. Consider the example of gays in the military. That’s “progress” to a liberal but it’s really a social experiment in something that 1) isn’t the right place for social experiments and 2) is attempting to fix something that isn’t broken. The essential goodness of the human race evidently includes the essential goodness in death row felons who are really just good people who were by no fault of their own cast into bad circumstances. The autonomy of the individual includes killing innocent babies in the womb because they’re inconvenient, unplanned, or unwanted. Political and civil liberties don’t extend to liberty to practice one’s Christian religious beliefs in political and civil functions and offices but it’s okay if you’re a Wiccan, secular humanist, or some other non-Christian cult. This is probably the weakest point in the definition as liberals are more interested in protecting minority liberties even when majority liberties must be sacrificed in the process. For example, political and civil liberties must be protected at all costs for terrorists making international phone calls or captured in foreign countries planning or commiting hostile acts against the United States. Political and civil liberties in the liberal world also don’t extend to each person being able to choose to provide for their own health care and not be forced to subsidize the care of others. Evidently the goodness of the human race doesn’t extend to charity. No goodness there folks. People aren’t good enough to choose to help those less well off so the liberal has to forcibly extract the proper amount of charity from them. -ds

  20. 20
    tribune7 says:

    Exactly! C should be A, it’s by far the most common way the word is used in this country.

    But what always had me curious is why C came, in action, to be the complete opposite of A and B i.e. from freedom of expression to speech codes, from freedom of inquiry to what’s occurred with Dr. Dembski, from free markets to wage and price controls — all done or advocated by people calling themselves liberals to the point where the term has almost become a slur.

    Was the change in meaning a natural evolution — sincere Roosevelt Democrats looking to help the truely needy and willing to cut intellectual corners to do so? Or was it something premediated by socialists hiding their true intentions to get power? Probably a mix but definitely the latter was involved.

    You got a great site, Dave.

  21. 21
    tinabrewer says:

    The evolution of the type of liberalism described by DaveScot, in its extreme form, is I think (fortunately) a minority view. I have only had personal experience of one human being who holds to the strong version of the described positions, and her life is a complete shambles (literally bankrupt, etc) because of her obdurate insistence on “helping” all of these losers who proceed to steal from her, take advantage of her, etc. And yet through it all, she clings to the notion that these poor disadvantaged people, who did nothing to get themselves into their current state, are really, deep deep down, good people. The extremes to which she will go to uphold this idea has made me come to question whether it is the idea itself, or some psychological need the idea fulfills. I believe it is the latter. People like this have a tremendous unspoken desire that the world SHOULD be a world without consequences, and one in which the weakest, least noble behaviors are indulged with pity, because they themselves cannot come to grips with their own inner weaknesses. They wish to be indulged, and so they indulge everyone else. This represents, fundamentally, a rebellion against the natural order which cries out that justice is necessary for peace. If the proper polarity of a peaceful and fruitful existence lies in the interaction of perfect justice and perfect love, then this ‘liberalism’ is the corruption of the love arm of the polarity.

    Also, it makes them feel superior inwardly to be the champions of the ‘disadvantaged’. Its just ego service in many cases. This may sound harsh, but I think it is true. If they had to admit that people should really be accountable for their actions, this would generate a psychological chain-reaction leading to melt-down, because they could no longer indulge in the fantasy that they also should be indulged. This would be terrifying. The intuition percieves quite correctly that a higher and immutable justice is at work, and it desperately creates falsehoods to protect itself from this frightening reality.

    Looking at the politics of these societal changes is like looking at the shell of an egg, while ignoring the insides. It has some helpful descriptive value, but doesn’t get at the essence of what is going on. Politics is a human creation, a fruit of the minds and souls of the humans making up the body politic. Understanding and having compassion for these deeper motivating factors might be a more effective way of communicating with the “other side” and reaching a more consensus view. Maybe that is just starry-eyed idealism!

    It is also important to keep in mind, in order to avoid hypocrisy and blaming, that just as the concept of love can be deeply corrupted, so equally can the concept of justice. Justice unbounded by love becomes vicious and brutal. The politics of the extreme right and the extreme left are reflections of the unbounded states of these two essential qualities. That is the main point of gripe I have with Ann Coulter. She says things which only a thoughtless person could reasonably rationalize away as “politically incorrect”. They are outright vicious. They are unbounded by love.

  22. 22
    russ says:

    Speaking a godless liberal, I can’t imagine banning this book just because Coulter says mean things. That’s just silly.

    Comment by Tiax — June 13, 2006 @ 8:47 pm

    But it’s not hard to imagine. Hate crime laws in the U.S. seek to mete out differening punishments for the same crimes based on racial animus in the perpetrator’s heart/mind.

    Universities have speech codes that ban speech that may hurt the feelings of other students.

    A judge in Dover, PA has banned references to ID in a public school because he finds teaching ID to be an abridgement of the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment: “The Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”

  23. 23
    Mung says:

    The Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

    You see. The Constitution does not prohibit judges from passing such laws, just the Congress. You go Judge Jones!

  24. 24
    turandot says:

    I happened to be surfing the web earlier and stumbled upon a new and brainy ID blog:
    http://intelligent-sequences.blogspot.com/.

    Tina: That is the main point of gripe I have with Ann Coulter. She says things which only a thoughtless person could reasonably rationalize away as “politically incorrect”. They are outright vicious. They are unbounded by love.

    Tell me, Have you actually *read* any of Ann Coulter’s books?

  25. 25
    tinabrewer says:

    turandot: I have picked up her books in the bookstore and read sequences out of them, and I have done some web research on her so that I would not post my opinions here without substantiation. Some other posters here have also included (on previous pages) some representative quotes. They’re nasty and ugly. There’s no question about it. the only question is whether one approves of this style of debate. I am not some prude, and enjoy the sharp tongue now and then. I just think a line gets crossed at a certain point, and I am of the opinion that Ann crosses it regularly. This is true even when I happen to agree with the substance of what she says, which I sometimes do.

  26. 26
    turandot says:

    tinabrewer: Understanding and having compassion for these deeper motivating factors might be a more effective way of communicating with the “other side” and reaching a more consensus view. Maybe that is just starry-eyed idealism!

    And what “deeper motivating factors” explain the simple fact that, say, partial birth abortion is considered by a fundamental right by some? What “deeper motivating factor” explains that some feel entitled to decide when a life is not worth living? What “deeper motivating factor” explains the fact that some aggressively defend the “rights” of self-confessed death-row serial murderers and utterly ignore the plain fact that the serial murderers didn’t give a thought to the right of their innocent victims to live?

    From where I sit, there’s a critical difference between starry-eyed idealism and turning a blind eye to pesky realities.

    tinabrewer: I have picked up her books in the bookstore and read sequences out of them, and I have done some web research on her so that I would not post my opinions here without substantiation. Some other posters here have also included (on previous pages) some representative quotes. They’re nasty and ugly. There’s no question about it. the only question is whether one approves of this style of debate.

    It strikes me that your representation of Ann Coulter’s “style of debate” is “unbounded by love,” particularly in view of the fact that you’ve not even bothered to READ any of her books before passing judgement.

    Style’s superficial. Substance is not.

    And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Matthew 7:3

  27. 27
    tinabrewer says:

    turandot: I guess I just don’t have the energy to argue about this. In my view it is simple: we were (I thought) discussing Ann Coulter’s style, not her particular opinions, which would be an incredibly lengthy and pointless argument. The reason we would even bother to discuss her style is because it now appears inevitable that her prominent book will associate ID ( and other criticisms of NDE ) with her persona and her politics. Many on this board have expressed reservations about this association, myself included. Thats all. If people are going to get the impression “Oh. ID. That’s that radical right-wing creationism stuff that Ann Coulter writes about” then I think the style issue matters. Criticising someone is not loveless, and it is not the same as attacking them personally. I am sure you can sense the distinction. it shocks me that you are unable to percieve this in Ann’s writings simply because you happen to agree with her politics. She frankly revels in it, and makes no bones about it herself, so why would you pretend this is not the case?

  28. 28
    turandot says:

    Tina Brewer wrote:

    turandot: I guess I just don’t have the energy to argue about this. In my view it is simple: we were (I thought) discussing Ann Coulter’s style, not her particular opinions, which would be an incredibly lengthy and pointless argument. The reason we would even bother to discuss her style is because it now appears inevitable that her prominent book will associate ID ( and other criticisms of NDE ) with her persona and her politics. Many on this board have expressed reservations about this association, myself included. Thats all. If people are going to get the impression “Oh. ID. That’s that radical right-wing creationism stuff that Ann Coulter writes about” then I think the style issue matters. Criticising someone is not loveless, and it is not the same as attacking them personally. I am sure you can sense the distinction. it shocks me that you are unable to percieve this in Ann’s writings simply because you happen to agree with her politics. She frankly revels in it, and makes no bones about it herself, so why would you pretend this is not the case?

    To be perfectly honest, I haven’t the interest or energy to argue about this either.

    As I’ve stated, substance is, in my opinion, far more important than style. The substance I made reference to is NOT Ann Coulter’s opinions, which you’d know if you had read her books.

    You’ve studiously ignored DWSUWF’s acknowledgment that “Coulter’s book did get me to question my views of evolution and I now want to take a closer look at the Evolution vs. ID theory as a result,” which seems to me to counter your reservations.

    Yes, I do appreciate the distinction you make between criticism and personal attack. I’d be far more receptive to your attempt describe your Coulter commentary as criticism if you’d read just one of her books.

    Me, pretend? Well, that’s your opinion.

    Frankly, I find your holier-than-thou metaphorical finger-shaking more than a little pretentious.

    To each his own.

    The end.

  29. 29
    tinabrewer says:

    Wait! Its not the end yet! I have energy left for just one more post. Why do you say that you are not talking about Ann’s opinions when you list several of her key talking points in your last post? (abortion, criminal release) This is what led me to say that we shouldn’t get mired in a lengthy discussion of conservative politics. Not because it is uninteresting, but just because it doesn’t directly bear on the question of ID or Ann Coulter.

    I couldn’t agree with you more that substance is more important than style. However, style should be, in areas where we have a free choice about it, a true reflection of substance. Just because DWSUWF was able to wade through what he referred to as a ‘fetid swamp’ of nastiness to get to the interesting part, he also pointed out that he is probably in the minority on this one. The reality is that most people judge things quickly and they judge them superficially. If they judge quickly and superficially on the question of ID, and they do so in the negative because they just can’t stand Ann Coulter (for whatever reason) then this could represent a public relations liability. That is all I was trying to say.

    As to the pretentious philosophizing about the inner motivations of liberals, well, you may be right about that. I didn’t mean to be pretentious, but then, people who are being pretentious never MEAN it that way, so I will take that criticism to heart. I think the justice/love thing is correct though. Don’t you think it has any validity? I mean there is a real difference, it is palpable, between someone who is overwhelmingly obsessed with justice, punishment, correction, and has no mercy r tenderness versus someone who is all love love forgivenness with no backbone. I think these two poles real things, and I think they roughly correlate with the extremes in politics.

  30. 30
    turandot says:

    tinabrewer wrote: Wait! Its not the end yet! I have energy left for just one more post. Why do you say that you are not talking about Ann’s opinions when you list several of her key talking points in your last post? (abortion, criminal release) This is what led me to say that we shouldn’t get mired in a lengthy discussion of conservative politics. Not because it is uninteresting, but just because it doesn’t directly bear on the question of ID or Ann Coulter.

    Well.

    I wrote: And what “deeper motivating factors” explain the simple fact that, say, partial birth abortion is considered by a fundamental right by some? What “deeper motivating factors” explain that some feel entitled to decide when a life is not worth living? What “deeper motivating factors” explain the fact that some aggressively defend the “rights” of self-confessed death-row serial murderers and utterly ignore the plain fact that the serial murderers didn’t give a thought to the right of their innocent victims to live?

    What you’ve labeled “opinions” are not Ann Coulter’s. They’re MINE, and they’ve been MINE since I was a teenager — long before Ann Coulter published her “opinions” / “talking points.” Why you’d dismiss such important [an understatement] societal issues as partial-birth abortion, euthanasia, etc., as mere “talking points,” or “politics,” is beyond my comprehension.

    You wrote: Understanding and having compassion for these deeper motivating factors might be a more effective way of communicating with the “other side” and reaching a more consensus view.

    I asked you to explain the “deeper motivating factors” in the context of, for instance, the view that partial-birth abortion is a fundamental right, and you responded by accusing me of “talking about Ann’s opinions” and “listing her talking points,” which seem to me awfully condescending and arrogant red herrings.

    I’m confused. You want to avoid becoming “mired in a lengthy discussion of conservative politics,” while at the same time you post lengthy political philosophy monologues which don’t “directly bear on the question of ID or Ann Coulter.”

    tinabrewer: I couldn’t agree with you more that substance is more important than style. However, style should be, in areas where we have a free choice about it, a true reflection of substance. Just because DWSUWF was able to wade through what he referred to as a ‘fetid swamp’ of nastiness to get to the interesting part, he also pointed out that he is probably in the minority on this one. The reality is that most people judge things quickly and they judge them superficially. If they judge quickly and superficially on the question of ID, and they do so in the negative because they just can’t stand Ann Coulter (for whatever reason) then this could represent a public relations liability. That is all I was trying to say.

    Whether DWSUWF believes he’s in the minority re: wading through the fetid swamp of nastiness or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is that he did in fact wade through what he described as a nasty, fetid swamp, and that he found Coulter’s arguments [NOT “opinions”] persuasive.

    tinabrewer: As to the pretentious philosophizing about the inner motivations of liberals, well, you may be right about that. I didn’t mean to be pretentious, but then, people who are being pretentious never MEAN it that way, so I will take that criticism to heart. I think the justice/love thing is correct though. Don’t you think it has any validity? I mean there is a real difference, it is palpable, between someone who is overwhelmingly obsessed with justice, punishment, correction, and has no mercy r tenderness versus someone who is all love love forgivenness with no backbone. I think these two poles real things, and I think they roughly correlate with the extremes in politics.

    I think it’s really unfair to assume that Ann Coulter’s “overwhelmingly obsessed with justice, love, and punishment and devoid of mercy and tenderness on the basis of having skimmed the content of a book she’s written. A person who defends the rights of the INNOCENT and the VULNERABLE, particularly those who cannot speak for themselves, manifests a very admirable loving and merciful tenderness, in my own opinion.

    I agree that Americans are polarized, deeply so. I don’t agree that there’s a correlation between human psychic extremes — “overwhelmingly obsessed with justice, punishment, correction … no mercy or tenderness” v. “all love / forgiveness with no backbone.”

  31. 31
    tinabrewer says:

    turandot: I just cannot have you go away from this discussion thinking that i believe that serious issues like abortion, etc. are ‘talking points’ and nothing else. I just called the whole range of potential controversial views “talking points” to convey the idea that they are the ones which get talked about in the media most often. This in no way concerns their seriousness. I guess I am trying to avoid getting into a discussion of the morality of these deeply controversial issues because they are off-topic although very interesting and important. You correctly chastised me for being too moralizing about the liberals and about Ann. However, please at least recognize that my “lengthy political philosophy monologues” was intended (although obviously failed) to be on-topic. i was trying to convey and idea about how one could reduce the degree of polarization in the media discussion of major issues, and I was attempting to contrast this with the shrill and polarizing talk which dominates today. That seems a fair point, even if you think I’m full of it.

    “A person who defends the rights of the INNOCENT and VULNERABLE, particularly those who cannot speak for themselves, manifests a very admirable loving and merciful tenderness…” Absolutely. Beautifully said. I have myself often made the point that real love often looks quite severe, because genuine love is composed primarily (IMHO) of the desire to uplift and benefit the beloved on a spiritual level. This
    often entails saying no, setting boundaries and even chastising. And of course, it can mean looking retrograde in the public eye for being “anti-choice”. On the other hand, I definitely feel that those whos desire to defend the innocent and vulnerable becomes a passion which leads to murder itself ( bombed clinics, murder of doctors ) have gone over the edge i theorized so pretentiously about. Maybe not. Maybe its justice.

    I will try, just for the sake of clarity, to provide you with an example of a “deeper motivating factor” in context like you asked. Lets take the example of abortion. Lets say there is a televised discussion of the issue of abortion, and the two sides are going to go at it. I personally believe that a deeper motivating factor of many people who desire ready access to abortion is an unspoken need to be unbounded by natural law. These people have lost all connection to the natural law of cause and effect, and wish to live in a universe which doesn’t work according to this law, either physically or psychically. So, if I were to confront them, I would start by inquiring into this inner state, not attacking them on the surface with accusation of being murderers. I might say “could you help me to understand why, according to your view, pregnancy is an unfair burden on women, which they should be free to dispense with at will? In my view, choice is also terribly important, but I would see the arena of choice to lie in the time before conception. ” Then, perhaps a discussion of the appropriate time to exercise reproductive choice could ensue. The fact of the matter is that we live in a time in which the ready access to birth control and its ease and effectiveness of employment should render the entire question of abortion essentially moot. The (relatively) few cases of rape/incest/life of mother would hardly raise an eyebrow. It is controversial basically because it is currently used as a form of birth-control and occurs in the millions. I think these facts would quickly come to light if the debate were a debate and not an accusatory shouting match. In my personal experience with other adults, and even with my own kids, I have found that when a discussion is approached calmly and objectively, the true strengths and weaknesses of each side are quickly revealed. This does not happen when shrill name-calling takes place. I would try to remain objective because it would also lead to a better outcome and not only because of lofty ideals about the appropriate use of language. Actually I have had such discussions with close family members on precisely this issue. I feel like people like Ann are either dismissed as freaks or they are rallying points for true believers who take pride that they have such an unapologetic spokesperson for their views. But what they definitely do NOT do is increase genuine communication (IMHO) and I am saying this without dismissing DWSUWF’s exposure to the ID debate. This can definitely happen, but sometimes the exception proves the rule.
    On the other hand, maybe genuine communication is not what is needed at this point.

    As to assuming that Ann is devoid of mercy and tenderness, I didn’t mean this to apply directly to her. That was my attempt to describe the polarities of extreme inner attitudes in general. It was a part of my pretentious philosophizing and wasn’t meant to refer to one specific person.

    Finally, I guess maybe I have used the word “opinion” too loosely. When I use it, I use it to refer even to carefully constructed arguments, because its a distinction from “fact” in the sense of being a universally agreed upon aspect of nature or the world. So, when you say that DWSUWF agreed with her arguments and not her opinions, we have no quarrel, I was just using the word more generally. This comes clear when you see that someone with exactly contrary views can build a careful and persuasive argument as well.

  32. 32
    turandot says:

    tinabrewer: I just cannot have you go away from this discussion thinking that i believe that serious issues like abortion, etc. are ‘talking points’ and nothing else. > i was trying to convey and idea about how one could reduce the degree of polarization in the media discussion of major issues, and I was attempting to contrast this with the shrill and polarizing talk which dominates today. That seems a fair point, even if you think I’m full of it.

    I don’t think you’re full of it.

    And I do think that your point’s fair, in a perfect world.

    tinabrewer: I have myself often made the point that real love often looks quite severe, because genuine love is composed primarily (IMHO) of the desire to uplift and benefit the beloved on a spiritual level. This often entails saying no, setting boundaries and even chastising. And of course, it can mean looking retrograde in the public eye for being “anti-choice”. On the other hand, I definitely feel that those whos desire to defend the innocent and vulnerable becomes a passion which leads to murder itself ( bombed clinics, murder of doctors ) have gone over the edge i theorized so pretentiously about. Maybe not. Maybe its justice.

    It seems to me that you’ve put your finger on the root of the problem, which is that disagreeing with progressives [those who’ve “borrowed” the term liberalism to prettify their perversion of its real meaning] means “looking retrograde in the public eye for being ‘anti-choice,'” although I would broaden your statement to encompass *conservatism* as a whole. And, it seems to me, considering that a federal law as distressingly controversial as Roe v. Wade and the subsequent even broader interpretations were imposed on Americans from on high [the “decision” predicated on lies / see {http://tinylink.com/?tNAczb27Ez}], I think those that oppose this law of the land have overwhelmingly expressed their anger using admirable restraint.

    tinabrewer: I will try, just for the sake of clarity, to provide you with an example of a “deeper motivating factor” in context like you asked. Lets take the example of abortion. Lets say there is a televised discussion of the issue of abortion, and the two sides are going to go at it. I personally believe that a deeper motivating factor of many people who desire ready access to abortion is an unspoken need to be unbounded by natural law. These people have lost all connection to the natural law of cause and effect, and wish to live in a universe which doesn’t work according to this law, either physically or psychically. So, if I were to confront them, I would start by inquiring into this inner state, not attacking them on the surface with accusation of being murderers. I might say “could you help me to understand why, according to your view, pregnancy is an unfair burden on women, which they should be free to dispense with at will? In my view, choice is also terribly important, but I would see the arena of choice to lie in the time before conception. ” Then, perhaps a discussion of the appropriate time to exercise reproductive choice could ensue. The fact of the matter is that we live in a time in which the ready access to birth control and its ease and effectiveness of employment should render the entire question of abortion essentially moot. The (relatively) few cases of rape/incest/life of mother would hardly raise an eyebrow. It is controversial basically because it is currently used as a form of birth-control and occurs in the millions. I think these facts would quickly come to light if the debate were a debate and not an accusatory shouting match. In my personal experience with other adults, and even with my own kids, I have found that when a discussion is approached calmly and objectively, the true strengths and weaknesses of each side are quickly revealed. This does not happen when shrill name-calling takes place. I would try to remain objective because it would also lead to a better outcome and not only because of lofty ideals about the appropriate use of language. Actually I have had such discussions with close family members on precisely this issue. I feel like people like Ann are either dismissed as freaks or they are rallying points for true believers who take pride that they have such an unapologetic spokesperson for their views. But what they definitely do NOT do is increase genuine communication (IMHO) and I am saying this without dismissing DWSUWF’s exposure to the ID debate. This can definitely happen, but sometimes the exception proves the rule. On the other hand, maybe genuine communication is not what is needed at this point.

    Your argument is logical, reasonable, and thoughtful. However, your argument depends on the willingness of both the pro- and con- parties to the debate to make logical, reasonable, and thoughtful arguments — and that progressives just plain cannot do, for a laundry list of reasons [probably the most important one being that their agenda is fatally flawed and cannot withstand even superficial scrutiny, IMO]. Instead, progressives attack the man, not the argument….

    I am eternally grateful to Ann Coulter for awakening me from my resigned, apathetic slumber and provoking me to THINK, for convincing me that I am both in and of _this_ world, that being sneered at, etc., because my life philosophy is conservative will only make me stronger.

Leave a Reply