When Did Ann Coulter Become the Spokesperson for Judaeo-Christian Issues?

Helped by this? Tell a Friend! ---->

(HT to Carl McComan at The Website of Unknowing)

There are more problems with both sides of the debate than you can shake a stick at. I don’t personally dislike Ann Coulter. I just wish she would stick with what she is an expert at and leave the armchair theology alone. It just makes everyone look bad and does more harm than good.

0 Responses

  1. I agree. While I appreciate Ann Coulter’s positions on political issues, when she spouts off on theology, the spirit conveyed is neither one of humility or love.

    II Timothy 2 says:

    “Don’t have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels. And the Lord’s servant must not quarrel; instead, he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth…”

    Like you, I wish she would simply focus on what she’s good at. :-

    Blessings –

  2. In fairness to her, I think she became a “spokesman” for our religion simply by being asked about it. And while she didn’t explain her comment in the most gentle way (she is Ann Coulter, afterall), I don’t see why “perfected” is any reason to be offended, unless one is offended by the book of Hebrews.

  3. I think Ms. Coulter has a mean edge to her personna… I’m not sure if she is that way on a personal level… but I do not enjoy that part of her writings / interviews.

  4. Mick,

    I really believe that she wasn’t intentionally trying to come across as offensive. When you are talking on national television and being interviewed by a Jew you have to choose your words wisely because you can easily be taken the wrong way (as we see in the clip). You also have to be careful about your tone and attitude.

    She made a few slip ups in the clip. She said, “You could be a practicing Jew…but you’re not.” He responds, “actually that’s not true. I really am.” She calls him a liar based on a Seinfeld as a representative instance of an interracial couple. If he had responded to her as she did to him, he could have called her a liar for calling him a non-practicing Jew. But he didn’t.

    As far as being the spokesperson because she was asked about it, the question was something to the effect of, What would this country look like in your ideal world. Now she does have the right to say that in her ideal world everyone would be Christians because, afterall, it is her ideal world. To say that joyful, happy, Republicans looks a lot like heaven makes her look like a lunatic. If I were asked the same question I too would want everyone in the world to be a Christian. Afterall, that is my mission but to paint a picture of heaven as a having American flags on the walls of God’s throne room while the Democrats are no where to be found is pretty harsh. But that’s okay because that’s her style. Right?

    He pushes the issue by saying her America would be divisive and have a bigger gap between the rich and the poor (which would actually be more true of the democratic agenda than the republican in my opinion). He totally misunderstands her answer to his questions about Christians/Jews because she is trying to say Jews aren’t bad. She even goes so far as to say that many American megachurches are very diverse. She tries and tries to get him to hear what she is saying but he doesn’t. All he can here is “we don’t need Jews around”, which is not exactly what she meant. Because of that he compares her to Islamic extremists. The point is – some of what Ann says is accurate but VERY poorly stated and from an attitude and tone that comes across as condescending. If you know people are going to hear you that way it would really behoove you to present your case with a better attitude.

    I also agree with Ann’s statement, “The idea that the more Christian you are the less tolerant you would be is preposterous.” Then here is where it gets real crazy. He says, “We should throw Judaism away and we should all be Christians.” She says, “Yes.” The theologically correct answer would be, No we should not throw Judaism away and yes we should all be Christians. But she doesn’t say that. Then Ann says, “[Christians] are on the fast track. You have to obey…We just want Jews to be perfected…You believe in the Old Testament. Ours is more like Federal Express. You have to obey laws. We know we are all sinners…Christians consider themselves perfected Jews. You believe in the Old Testament. As you know from the Old Testament God was constantly getting fed up with humans for not being able to live up to all of the laws…that’s why Christ came and died for our sins…You have to follow laws. We believe Christ died for our sins.”

    Let’s deal with a little bit of that. He analogy of the FedEx fast track vs. obedience is just not accurate and is a very poor depiction of Judaism vs. Christianity. Also Christ vs. obedience and the law is also not accurate. Christians being perfected Jews is close to the mark but could have been stated better. Certainly the Old Testament points to and is incomplete without the Messiah – Christ. But her view of the Jewish faith is all messed up. Obedience is not what kept people in relationship with God under the Old Testament. We can talk more about that if any of you like to. Her misconception, which is a common one, throws a monkey wrench into what she is trying to say.

    His response is predictable – “Don’t you see how hateful and anti-semitic that is?” To some what she said would come away sounding that way. Why? Because she got it all wrong? No. Because she got some of it right but her attitude and tone did not line up with what she was trying to say. Ann is under attack a lot and so I don’t blame her for being so loud and defensive. I probably would be too if I were in her shoes. That tactic certainly didn’t come across very well in this instance.

    This Ann example is a perfect parallel to why I don’t talk politics very much here or respond on political blogs very much. I know I won’t come across well because I have just enough knowledge to get myself in trouble and say something I didn’t mean. I am proud of Ann for sticking up for Christianity. It was bold and we need more of that. We just need some bold people who are better informed on these issues and who approach the other side with a Christian attitude. That way we can come to the debate and speak intelligently on these issues.

    Let me conclude by saying that he did push her buttons. He did miss what she was saying and heard what he wanted to hear her say. Ann did get railroaded on this. I just don’t think that would have happened if she had approached it differently. Maybe that opinion gives her interviewer too much credit because he probably would have viewed her negatively no matter what she said.

  5. I find it hard to take her serious on anything. At my most cynical level, I wonder if she does not realize how outrageous a lot of her statements are. The more outrageous she gets, the more attention she gets, the more her books sell. And she is laughing all the way to the bank. Of course, I freely admit that I don’t know her and this is speculation on my part.

  6. As an antidote to Ann Coulter I would recommend Paul Metzger’s book, Consuming Jesus: Beyond Race and Class Divisions in a Consumer Church. One of the more convicting books I have read in a while.


  7. I love Ann Coulter’s cynicism and sarcasm in general–as entertainment. Some of it is right on track, while some of it is hugely exaggerated and intended merely to get a reacton.

    I agree that, as a Christian, she could have, and should have, handled this situation with a lot more grace. Matt, I agree with your comments at 9:37.

  8. Personally, I thought he was trying to bait her from the beginning. I probably would have been a little on edge too. The problem with her response was as you said Matt. I admire that she was sticking up for Christians. As a Christian, I know what she is talking about (or trying to talk about), but I can see how most people would still not understand it, and in fact, be offended.

  9. Ann Coulter is dangerous because she is given a perch (one from where her legs constantly hang out of increasingly short dresses) to speak for Christians when what she mostly wants is attention for herself and sales for her books.

    She is unimaganative in her response to this question – notice the big gap of silence – “this is your show.”

    Her “would you like to come to church with me Donny?” is … ridiculous and horrifies me.

    Who are these megachurches inviting her? (and does she bring one of her dresses or does she have something else?)

    She says that heaven will be like the Republican national convention.

    Does that scare anyone else but me?

  10. For me the interview reveals everything that is wrong in what is called the Christian world today.

    To know that people reject Christ because of this attitude and this idea saddens me.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Subscribe To Weekly Newsletter!

Get updates and learn from the best

Read this Next!


Defining a Miracle

One question that comes up a lot when we talk about whether or not miracles still happen is to define

Want to Plant Churches or make disciples?

I would love to hear from You!

%d bloggers like this: