Another charming factoid a la Ann:
- "We say humans are in God’s image; they say we are no different morally from the apes."
Hmmm… I’ve never met one person, no matter how anti-religion they are, who would agree with this. Where I usually tend to differ with non-religious people is on the source, nature and relativity (or lack thereof) of morality, not whether (or not) humans have a responsibility to the world that's greater than that of apes.
Another problem with your big conspiracy theory Ann? According to adherents, 31 percent of Americans claim to be Democrats, while atheists and agnostics combined make up less than one percent of the population. But that’s okay. A lot of people aren’t good at math, so I’ll let you slide on that one. Just rest assured there are a whole lot of crazy liberals out there working to please God. The big challenge here for you is to try not to confuse “pleasing God” with “pleasing Ann.”
In other words, let me break it down for you Ann… it’s not that most of us liberals no longer look to God, we’re just too embarrassed to admit it to anyone, lest they say, “Oh… so you mean you’re one of those idiots like Ann Coulter.” It’s nearly an exercise in futility to explain over and over again why faith and intelligence can, in fact, co-exist, when you, George Bush Jr., and Pat Robertson are the most prominent examples of “religious” people we have to work with.
Article comments
1 - Al Barger
For you Staci, we have this Evil Ann Coulter Photo Gallery. Enjoy.
2 - Humane Being
You wrote:
Here's another "fact" according to Coulter: "Environmentalists want mass infanticide." I looked high and low to verify this, but neither the Green Party, nor the Democrats list "mass infanticide" as a goal. It's not stated as a goal by Greenpeace or the United Nations either. For the love of Mike, even the over-the-top nuts at PETA don't advocate infanticide. So just who are these "liberal environmentalists" of whom she speaks? Oh yeah, that Peter Singer guy, whose pretty much universally understood to be an extremist lunatic, even among the Godless. Sorry Ann, hire a fact checker already.
I reply:
Can you show us where Peter Singer has advocated mass infanticide?
Here's an example of what Singer actually says about infanticide:
"I became interested in the treatment of severely disabled newborn infants in the late 1970s, when I learned that it is common practice for doctors to deal with such cases by "letting nature take its course." This means that no operations are performed and no antibiotics given, and the babies die slowly over many days, weeks, or even months. Parents often are not consulted but simply told that there is nothing that can be done for their child. This seems to me an evasion of moral responsibility, and often grossly inhumane. Yet, on investigating the prospects for some of the more severely disabled infants, I had to accept that it was not always good to prolong life, no matter what its prospects might be. Sometimes it was reasonable to decide that a life that had barely begun should not continue. But who should make this difficult decision? The infant, of course, cannot."...
"I could see no important moral distinction between allowing death to occur by the deliberate withholding of available medical treatment and actively intervening to hasten death and ensure that it came swiftly and humanely. I still think the latter course, precisely because it does involve less suffering, is often the morally better one to take."...
Source: "Ethics and Disability." Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 2005. utilitarian.net
3 - Staci Schoff
Originally, I'd pointed out that even Peter Singer doesn't advocate "mass" infanticide, but I cut it. You're right. Still, both to me and the vast majority of people (even liberals) what he advocates is morally reprehensible.
4 - Zenseeker
I think deep down, what Ann really wants, is to be bitch slapped so hard, she goes flying.
Try out this flash game I just finished called: Slap Ann Coulter b4 she nukes half the world at Link to Slap Ann Coulter here. [Edited]
5 - Mom101
Great piece, as always Staci. I'm just impressed you got through it. Don't tell anyone, but whenever I see it displayed in a bookstore, I put Al Franken's book right in front of it.
6 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Staci,
One little point with your article. Judaism recognizes 613 commandments, not 673. Six hundred thirteen is enough, we do not need anther 60.
7 - Staci Schoff
Ruvy, thank you, I'll see if I can fix that.
8 - duane
There are at least 25 commandments having to do with sexual practices, many having to do with olive oil, a lot have to do with cows, several dealing with lepers. Then there's hair length, wine and grapes, not to bear a grudge (haha, hoho), to rebuke the sinner (ah, well, here it comes), a lot of rules about who can or cannot marry whom, one forbids eating a worm if found in fruit, and one of my favorites disallows one from eating the flesh of an ox that was condemned to be stoned, not to sell a Hebrew servant as a slave (that should be an easy one), to make a parapet for your roof, not to swear falsely in denial of another's property rights.
Some are probably redundant, such as not to steal personal property and not to rob by violence. I think the first one covers the second. Maybe not. "Not to covet what belongs to another" is pretty much the same as "not to crave something that belongs to another," I would think. But then again, what do I know?
This one is a little gruesome, "That the dead body of an executed criminal shall not remain hanging on the tree over night." Wow. Good thing Israel has no death penalty, although it says in Genesis 9:6 "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed, for in the image of God made he man." Well, that's one for the scholars to hammer out, I guess.
No tattoos.
"To slay the inhabitants of a city that has become idolatrous and burn that city." That's a big responsibility.
"Not to work with beasts of different species, yoked together." Yeah, I once yoked a mule and a musk ox, and lemme tell you ... nothing but trouble.
And hundreds more. It's all very complicated.