The Passion Of The Liberal

[rtwngAvngr]

The Passion Of The Liberal
March 3, 2004
Ann Coulter
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2004/030304p.htm


IN THE DOZENS and dozens of panic-stricken articles the New York Times has run on Mel Gibson's movie, "The Passion of the Christ," the unavoidable conclusion is that liberals haven't the vaguest idea what Christianity is. The Times may have loopy ideas about a lot of things, but at least when they write about gay bathhouses and abortion clinics, you get the sense they know what they're talking about.

But Christianity just doesn't ring a bell. The religion that has transformed Western civilization for two millennia is a blank slate for liberals. Their closest reference point is "conservative Christians," meaning people you're not supposed to hire. And these are the people who carp about George Bush's alleged lack of "intellectual curiosity."

The most amazing complaint, championed by the Times and repeated by all the know-nothing secularists on television, is that Gibson insisted on "rubbing our faces in the grisly reality of Jesus' death." The Times was irked that Gibson "relentlessly focused on the savagery of Jesus' final hours" – at the expense of showing us the Happy Jesus. Yes, Gibson's movie is crying out for a car chase, a sex scene or maybe a wise-cracking orangutan.







The Times ought to send one of its crack investigative reporters to St. Patrick's Cathedral at 3 p.m. on Good Friday before leaping to the conclusion that "The Passion" is Gibson's idiosyncratic take on Christianity. In a standard ritual, Christians routinely eat the flesh and drink the blood of Jesus Christ, aka "the Lamb of God." The really serious Catholics do that blood- and flesh-eating thing every day, the sickos. The Times has just discovered the tip of a 2,000-year-old iceberg.

But the loony-left is testy with Gibson for spending so much time on Jesus' suffering and death while giving "short shrift to Jesus' ministry and ideas" – as another Times reviewer put it. According to liberals, the message of Jesus, which somehow Gibson missed, is something along the lines of "be nice to people" (which to them means "raise taxes on the productive").

You don't need a religion like Christianity, which is a rather large and complex endeavor, in order to flag that message. All you need is a moron driving around in a Volvo with a bumper sticker that says "be nice to people." Being nice to people is, in fact, one of the incidental tenets of Christianity (as opposed to other religions whose tenets are more along the lines of "kill everyone who doesn't smell bad and doesn't answer to the name Mohammed"). But to call it the "message" of Jesus requires ... well, the brain of Maureen Dowd.

In fact, Jesus' distinctive message was: People are sinful and need to be redeemed, and this is your lucky day because I'm here to redeem you even though you don't deserve it, and I have to get the crap kicked out of me to do it. That is the reason He is called "Christ the Redeemer" rather than "Christ the Moron Driving Around in a Volvo With a 'Be Nice to People' Bumper Sticker on It."

The other complaint from the know-nothing crowd is that "The Passion" will inspire anti-Semitic violence. If nothing else comes out of this movie, at least we finally have liberals on record opposing anti-Semitic violence. Perhaps they should broach that topic with their Muslim friends.

One Times review of "The Passion" said: "To be a Christian is to face the responsibility for one's own most treasured sacred texts being used to justify the deaths of innocents." At best, this is like blaming Jodie Foster for the shooting of Ronald Reagan. But the reviewer somberly warned that a Christian should "not take the risk that one's life or work might contribute to the continuation of a horror." So the only thing Christians can do is shut up about their religion. (And no more Jodie Foster movies!)

By contrast, in the weeks after 9-11, the Times was rushing to assure its readers that "prominent Islamic scholars and theologians in the West say unequivocally that nothing in Islam countenances the Sept. 11 actions." (That's if you set aside Muhammad's many specific instructions to kill non-believers whenever possible.) Times columnists repeatedly extolled "the great majority of peaceful Muslims." Only a religion with millions of practitioners trying to kill Americans and Jews is axiomatically described as "peaceful" by liberals.

As I understand it, the dangerous religion is the one whose messiah instructs: "f one strikes thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also" and "Love your enemies ... do good to them that hate you, and pray for them that persecute and calumniate you." The peaceful religion instructs: "Slay the enemy where you find him." (Surah 9:92).

Imitating the ostrich-like posture of certain German Jews who ignored the growing danger during Hitler's rise to power, today's liberals are deliberately blind to the real threats of violence that surround us. Their narcissistic self-image requires absolute solicitude toward angry savages plotting acts of terrorism. The only people who scare them are the ones who worship a Jew.

 

[Palestinian Jew]

Thats good stuff! I love how that dumb bimbo somehow manages to string a series of thoughts together and makes the conservatives look bad. Does she have any idea that us Catholics generally lean to the liberal ideology?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by Palestinian Jew
Thats good stuff! I love how that dumb bimbo somehow manages to string a series of thoughts together and makes the conservatives look bad. Does she have any idea that us Catholics generally lean to the liberal ideology?

Yeah, especially the choir boy dick sucking ones.

 

[deciophobic]

here's an idea...never ever listen to ann coulter again. she is a nut and people can't see that they need help.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by deciophobic
here's an idea...never ever listen to ann coulter again. she is a nut and people can't see that they need help.

That's a bad idea. You should listen to her more. You could learn about reasonable politics, and get a sense of humor at the same time. Thanks for the tip, though, champ.

 

[Zhukov]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
But the loony-left is testy with Gibson for spending so much time on Jesus' suffering and death while giving "short shrift to Jesus' ministry and ideas" – as another Times reviewer put it.

Not surprising the left would be so concerned with that, as some of the things Jesus said smacked of communism.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Yes the communist pinkness runs deep.

 

[deciophobic]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
That's a bad idea. You should listen to her more. You could learn about reasonable politics, and get a sense of humor at the same time. Thanks for the tip, though, champ.

do you really belive she is "reasonable"?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by deciophobic
do you really belive she is "reasonable"?

Yes very. And hilarious. And sexy. Actually, I'm in love with her.

 

[for the people]

Doesn't anyone see some irony in the fact that the "born again" (supposedly reformed) party boy president of the United States invaded a muslim nation with no provocation? I'm not quite sure how conservatives justify their positions with regards to Christianity. Is it that that they think because they ask for redemption in Christ's name that it's alright to behave with little or no compassion for their fellow man? I'm no particular fan of the Muslim Religion, but I'm not sure that we Christians have any better historical record of non-violence than the Muslims: leading right up to Dubya and Iraq. I think Christ's message was more than - go ahead, sin all you want, and then ask for redemption. I think demonstrating compassion for your fellow man isn't something to be made fun of: especially by someone who claims to be a Christian. What New Testament did she read? Oh. if conservatives would only step out of their black and white world instead of spending so much time defending their pidgeon-holed perceptions, the nation and the world just might become a better place for all. By the way, what's that quote, " it is easier for a camel to fit through the eye of a needle.....?"

 

[Avatar4321]

Doesn't anyone see some irony in the fact that the "born again" (supposedly reformed) party boy president of the United States invaded a muslim nation with no provocation?

Cant see what isnt true. What muslim nation have we invaded without provocation? Aghanistan? Terrorist camps and a terror regime. Iraq? Mass murdering dictator with terrorists ties who wanted to develop WMD to use against us and his neighbors, who violated several UN Resolution and the ceasefire agreement from the Gulf War (which of course means that in reality this was was the same one as the first, just with a 12 cease fire). Besides which, Iraq was a secular totalitarian. Im not sure weve invaded any other nations recently and both of those we had reasons to, so which muslim nation did we invade without provocation?

I'm not quite sure how conservatives justify their positions with regards to Christianity. Is it that that they think because they ask for redemption in Christ's name that it's alright to behave with little or no compassion for their fellow man?

Im not quite show how you seem to think that liberating nations from dictators is not compassionate. How is helping people to practice their faith freely, speak their mine, choose their own economic path, seek an education etc is uncompassionate? How is it more compassionate to leave them starving under a regime that murders people for their opinions and ethnicity, rapes women, and invades its neighbor for land and power?

I'm no particular fan of the Muslim Religion, but I'm not sure that we Christians have any better historical record of non-violence than the Muslims: leading right up to Dubya and Iraq.

Sure we do. We established free nations. Something foriegn to the rest of the world at the time. We separated Church and state (meaning we didnt have an official state Church) and permitted free practice of religion and thus we have a nation that doesnt kill people over religion. We do however, have periods of time when our people and freedoms are attacked and we will defend ourselves and help others free themselves. But I bear no anomosity toward any Muslim who wishes to practice his religion in peace. Only those who think their goal is to kill everyone who disagrees with them.

I think Christ's message was more than - go ahead, sin all you want, and then ask for redemption. I think demonstrating compassion for your fellow man isn't something to be made fun of: especially by someone who claims to be a Christian. What New Testament did she read? Oh. if conservatives would only step out of their black and white world instead of spending so much time defending their pidgeon-holed perceptions, the nation and the world just might become a better place for all. By the way, what's that quote, " it is easier for a camel to fit through the eye of a needle.....?"

You dont know conservatives very well. No conservative ive ever met say go ahead sin all you want and ask for redemption. You see the born again movement is strong in conservatism. Where one who was previously sinful is born again into a new person through Christ. we still make mistakes but the desire for evil is gone. I just cant fathom how risking our lives to liberate other nations is an evil thing.

 

[cptpwichita]

well put avatar 4321.also when christians commit acts of violence in jesus name they are not in agreement with the new testament nor the example of christs life.when a muslim commits an act of violence he can point to the koran and the life of mohammad.the reason we had violence in jesus name was because the roman catholic church had taken the bible away from the people and held mass in latin and the masses became spiritually bankrupt since the word of god had been suppressed by a small group of powerful people led by corrupt popes (not all popes were corrupt but a good number of them were) to take advantage of the people.in contrast muslims seem to become more violent the more religious they become and the more they attempt to live by the example of there prophet(they become good muslims) but most people don't believe this because they believe-
1.most people are basically good
2.most religions are just about the same aren't they
3.we need to just be tolerant and except everyones beliefs
4.all i know is... (when people start a sentence like this i know they have no facts and are uninformed)
5.i know several muslims who are good people(and probably bad muslims)
6.thats not what cnn is saying.

 

[for the people]

Cant see what isnt true. What muslim nation have we invaded without provocation? Aghanistan? Terrorist camps and a terror regime. Iraq? Mass murdering dictator with terrorists ties who wanted to develop WMD to use against us and his neighbors,

COLOR=darkred]First, there is NO proof that Saddam was amassing WMD to use against us or that he had ties to to terrorist groups with plans to use WMD against us[/COLOR] To state that he was indicates total lack of diregard for the facts. If you have proof that he was, I'm sure dubya's campaign would sure like to speak to you as well as CNN. Pres. Bush lied to the American People. He stated that Iraq was trying to buy yellow cake uranium in Africa in his 2003 State Of The Union Address. This was after his own inspector said that there was no credibility to the accusation. This was also after the accusation had been taken out of speeches two previous times by the Bush adm. Bush should have been impeached and removed from office by now.
Let's look at a little history. With the help of the CIA, the government of Iran was overthrown and the Shaw placed in power. Everyone knows what a nice guy he was. If you don't look it up. When his regime was overthrown, Reagan and George senior gave Saddam WMD to use against "his Neighbors," the Iranians, which he did. To even suggest that the US always acts to support civil rights in foriegn countries and "liberating nations from dictators" is just rediculous.

I am certainly not defending Saddam. He was is a crazed lunatic. However, to defend invading Iraq, you must be advocating that we invade all nations with ruthless totalitarian regimes. There are many nations in the world in which the people are suffering far more severely than the Iraqi citizens were: Somalia for one.[
So, why Iraq?

I have very little regard for President Bush, but I certainly don't want a foriegn nation to invade us to take him out of power.

Claiming to be a Christian and behaving in a Christian manner are two different things. All too often, I see conservatives as hypocrits: justifying actions contrary to the Christian Ethic. No, I don't see conservatives saying "go ahead and sin." That's the problem. They seem to be unwilling or incapable of looking at things objectively. It's just too convenient to see things in black and white for them. I do agree that there are good and bad Muslims, but there are also good and bad Christians. Claiming to be "born again" and living your life as one are two different things. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"

 

[Bullypulpit]

<center><IMG src=http://www.agitproperties.com/osc/eshop/images/AnnStoreLarge.gif></center>

 

[Zhukov]

To even suggest that the US always acts to support civil rights in foriegn countries and "liberating nations from dictators"

Who said we did? And yet you fault us for cleaning up our own mess. Should we have continued to ignore the problem? I guess you think so.

However, to defend invading Iraq, you must be advocating that we invade all nations with ruthless totalitarian regimes. There are many nations in the world in which the people are suffering far more severely than the Iraqi citizens were: Somalia for one. So why Iraq?

I would advocate the invasion of any totalitarian regime, or at least the aerial destruction of it's infrastructure and support for domestic insurgent groups.

Why Iraq? We invaded Iraq because 1.) our war is with global Islamo-fascist terrorism and Iraq happens to be in the heart of the area of the world that movement began, 2.) Saddam was a terrorist supporting dictator, the threat of which to us, our allies, and our global interests was re-evaluated after 9/11, and because 3.) oil is important.

I have very little regard for President Bush, but I certainly don't want a foriegn nation to invade us to take him out of power.

If he had exterminated your whole family and hundreds of people you knew you might not feel that way.


http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect5.html

 

[Avatar4321]

First, there is NO proof that Saddam was amassing WMD to use against us or that he had ties to to terrorist groups with plans to use WMD against us

Fine there is no evidence that Saddam was amassing WMD or had ties with terror despite Saddam paying terrorist families money. having a training camp in Iraq. having used WMDs, having weapons programs, having Osama Bin Laden make videos telling terrorists to come to the aid of of Saddam, Al queda members fighting the British near Basra BEFORE the fall of the regime, and the fact that President Clinton, John Kerry, had seen the same intelligence and come to the same conclusion, that the UN, 53 other nations, and of course Iraq itself claiming to to have WMDs. But no there is not one iota of evidence that suggests that Saddam had WMD or terrorist ties.

If you have proof that he was, I'm sure dubya's campaign would sure like to speak to you as well as CNN. Pres. Bush lied to the American People.

About what??? name one piece of information that he knowing lied about. One. its not that tough yet you guys have been claiming he lied since before he was President and cant provide any evidence to show he lied about squat. Why the heck do you think no one takes you people seriously.

He stated that Iraq was trying to buy yellow cake uranium in Africa in his 2003 State Of The Union Address.

He said that British Intelligence had evidence that he was trying to buy yellow cake in Africa in the State of the Union. British intelligence continues to verify that this is true even today. How has he lied? Especially considering the news from a few months ago that the dutch found Yellow cake being smuggled out of Iraq in scrap metal. A story that was pretty big in the foriegn press. Somehow it seems to have missed your precious CNN.

This was after his own inspector said that there was no credibility to the accusation. This was also after the accusation had been taken out of speeches two previous times by the Bush adm. Bush should have been impeached and removed from office by now.

This is what I dont get about you liberals. You want to impeach Bush despite that he hasnt broken any laws. But when Clinton breaks laws you think impeachment shouldnt happen. and then nominate a guy who committed treason during Vietnam to replace President Bush. That so makes sense. Explain to me how telling us that British Intelligence has evidence that Saddam was trying to purchase yellow cake is a lie, when British Intelligence continues to claim to this day that Iraq did and claims to have evidence that proves it aside from the information the libs claim is fabricated? The Bush administration has said it probably wasnt the strongest information and probably shouldnt have been included but they havent said that its wrong either. You guys have no basis for this accusation. Why do you think the Democrat leadership drops it? If the Democrat leaders had anything to attack Bush with they would be doing it. Heck they are willing to make stuff up to attack Bush with yet they havent been using this. why?

Let's look at a little history. With the help of the CIA, the government of Iran was overthrown and the Shaw placed in power. Everyone knows what a nice guy he was. If you don't look it up. When his regime was overthrown, Reagan and George senior gave Saddam WMD to use against "his Neighbors," the Iranians, which he did. To even suggest that the US always acts to support civil rights in foriegn countries and "liberating nations from dictators" is just rediculous.

I know history pretty well. I know that we wouldnt have to deal with Iran or Iraq if it werent for the bungling of the Carter administration. If Carter hadnt supported the overthrow of our Ally the Shah to the far worse regime of the Ayatollah then Saddam wouldnt have come to power in Iraq (which happened directly from the revolution in Iran). Reagan made a judgement call. We needed an ally in the region after our former ally was betrayed so that we could have a presence to stopping the communist expansion of the Soviets. So the Reagan administration supported what they thought was the lesser of two evils. They supported Saddam in the Iraq/Iran war because Carter didnt give them much choice. Which is all the more reason for the US to take out Sadam. If you gave someone a gun, and they started shooting everyone with it, isnt it your responsibility to stop the guy rather than doing nothing and hoping he stops killing people? How does the mistake of given Saddam weapons to fight the Iranians somehow justify not taking responsibility for that and cleaning up the mess that was made?

Ive also noticed that you liberals are continuing to speak out of both sides of your mouth. Reagan/Bush 1 gave Iraq WMDS vs There is no evidence that Iraq has WMDS or that Saddam wants them. So which is it? It cant be both. Because the first clearly indicates that saddam did want WMD and was wi lling to use them. So if the first is true than the second cant be. because there is evidence that Saddam wanted WMDS and was willing to use them.

I am certainly not defending Saddam. He was is a crazed lunatic. However, to defend invading Iraq, you must be advocating that we invade all nations with ruthless totalitarian regimes. There are many nations in the world in which the people are suffering far more severely than the Iraqi citizens were: Somalia for one.[

You cant say that we were wrong for going into Iraq and taking out Saddam without defending him! You cant be opposed to a guy and then refuse to take care of him and think you are consistant or acting responsibly any more than the radicals during the 60s could claim to not be defending the North Vietnamese and somehow not take responsibility the millions of lives lost because of them. You are defending Saddam. you dont want to admit it but if we had it your way Saddam would still be in power. Him and His sons would still be raping and killing their people. The Iraqis would still be oppressed and starving. How compassionate is that?

Saddam wasnt a lunatic. He was evil. He knew exactly what he was doing. Your refusal to see Evil in the world is one of the fundamental flaws of the left.

And I am for taking out every totalitarian regime. If we have to invade their to liberate them its fine by me. We are supposed to be the bearers of freedom to the world. Why is it you think we can be irresponsible and let totalitarians destory people? Now I think we need to do this with wisdom. If we can do it better without war, then lets do it. But if we have to invade a country to free their people I see absolutely nothing wrong with that. I dont think anyone who loves freedom would be.

 

[Avatar4321]

They seem to be unwilling or incapable of looking at things objectively. It's just too convenient to see things in black and white for them

There are alot of things that are black and white. Some choices however are choices between black and blacker. I actually think its the liberals who are looking at things more black and white.

Is it right to support a tyrant if overthrowing him would put a regime in place thats even worse?

Is it right to support a tyrant if he helps us oppose a Tyrant thats far worse than he is?

These are some of the black and blacker choices. Ones in which liberals view. Theys rather condemn tyrants and overthrow them even if it means someone else replaces them.

I think i understand alittle more why liberalism is so opposed to religion. It is a religion. Its a secular religion where its members dream of a utopian society but refuse to deal with what actually goes on in the world or admit that there is evil in the world, which is why its a fundamentally flawed idealogy.

 

[Zhukov]

The problem is, it's too easy to say "War isn't the answer."

Unfortunately, war too often is the only answer. That said, it is a far better course of action to confront the problem rather than try to hide from it, because sooner or later it will find you.

 

[for the people]

and then nominate a guy who committed treason during Vietnam

How is serving your country in Vietnam and then speaking against the war treasonous? I do not fathom people like you that spout freedom and then turn around and ridicule individuals for speaking their mind. It's a fundamental right in the Constitution that you supposedly hold in such high esteem. A republic is based on having an informed citizenry. It is every U S citizen's duty to stay informed about what the government is doing and they have every right to speak out about how they feel. If you think that speaking out about what a person beleives is treasonous, then I'd say you are more closely alligned with Saddam Hussein's beliefs than than those of a patriotic American.

name one piece of information that he knowing lied about. One. its not that tough yet you guys have been claiming he lied since before he was President and cant provide any evidence to show he lied about squat. Why the heck do you think no one takes you people seriously.

I did. George W. lied about the yellow cake. When his own intelligence is telling him that it isn't true and he puts it in his State Of The Union Address, I'd call that lying. The truth hurts doesn't it? By the way, the Bush adm. can't even justify the war other than to say that Saddam was a ruthless tyrant. Obviously you must know more, or think you do, than them.

If Carter hadnt supported the overthrow of our Ally the Shah to the far worse regime of the Ayatollah then Saddam wouldnt have come to power in Iraq (which happened directly from the revolution in Iran). Reagan made a judgement call. We needed an ally in the region after our former ally was betrayed so that we could have a presence to stopping the communist expansion of the Soviets. So the Reagan administration supported what they thought was the lesser of two evils.

So, it's alright to support oppressive totalitarian regimes like the Shah's? You just said that you were in favor of invading every country with a brutal totalitarian regime. Your logic escapes me on this one. You're also defending the support of Saddam by Reagan. Isn't that also contradictory? Did the Reagan adm. think that he was going to bury the WMD in the sand? From what you are saying, it must be O.K. to support some brutal regimes some of the time, but that we should invade the country of every brutal regime. Wow, now there's a conservative argument. How does supporting some brutal regimes fit into your Christian Ethics?

I think i understand alittle more why liberalism is so opposed to religion. It is a religion. Its a secular religion where its members dream of a utopian society but refuse to deal with what actually goes on in the world or admit that there is evil in the world, which is why its a fundamentally flawed idealogy.

I definitely don't deny that there is evil in this world. It's just that I see evil in more places than you do. It's conservatives like you that can't move out of their comfort zone and look at things objectively. You will never understand liberals. To understand would probably entail becoming one. Conservatives appear to be content to wave the flag, thump the Bible, and pass judgement on those who disagree with the status quo or who are different than they are. How Christian is that?

I see Saddam as evil. I see President Bush and his adm. as evil.
I see evil in those who profess to be good Americans and then want to deny certain freedoms such as speech to other Americans.

If he had exterminated your whole family and hundreds of people you knew you might not feel that way.

If your family and friends had been killed by the invading forces or if your son was a US soldier killed during the invasion, you might feel differently too. We could play "what if" for eternity.

 

[Zhukov]

for the people

I do not fathom people like you that spout freedom and then turn around and ridicule individuals for speaking their mind. It's a fundamental right in the Constitution that you supposedly hold in such high esteem.

Lying before a Senate Armed Services Committee in a way that aids the enemy is not protected by the Constitution. Nor does it neccessarily fall into the category of "speaking [your] mind."

They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.

We call this investigation the "Winter Soldier Investigation."

http://www.richmond.edu/~ebolt/history398/JohnKerryTestimony.html

The "Winter Soldier" John Kerry was referring to was later thoroughly discredited. Many of those who reported atrocities were later found to have not served in the capacity they claimed to have, or not served at all.

http://qando.net/archives/002160.htm

In his 1985 memoir about the war, Gen. Vo Nguyen Giap wrote that if it weren't for organizations like Kerry's Vietnam Veterans Against the War, Hanoi would have surrendered to the U.S.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/2/10/222651.shtml


If you don't understand the previous need to pick and choose which despots to support and which to confront I would direct your attention to a history book about the Cold War.

What am I thinking? According to liberals Communism isn't evil. Nevermind.