Posted on 08/23/2010 4:54:09 PM PDT by Sola Veritas
.................I believe that's what Jesus meant when He told us to love our enemies. The ultimate demonstration of love for a Christian should be to evangelize the lost.
There is no indication Ann Coulter has ever used one of her paid speaking engagements to do this. In fact, I'm not even sure a paid speaking engagement is an appropriate forum for evangelizing.
Nevertheless, I have heard from a few Christians who compare Coulter's paid speaking gig to Homocon with Jesus sitting down with tax collectors and sinners.
That is not good discernment.
Coulter is a political activist, a pundit, a satirist. She is not Jesus. And she is not an evangelist. No one is likely to get saved at Homocon because Ann Coulter gives a conservative stump speech.
What will happen as a result of her appearance is that a compromise will be made with sin. Sin will be condoned or appeased. A conservative icon will find accommodation with a sin that would undermine the foundations of Western civilization, the Judeo-Christian ethic and the most basic biblical standards of sexual morality.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Here’s a question, Would we all be happier if Rahm Emmanuel spoke to HOMOCON? Isn’t everyone better off with Ann speaking to them?
I have learned over many years never to attribute much importance to any person.That certainly applies here. This is a tempest in a teapot. Ann, for all her books, is a little person in the big political scheme of things (I'm just talking US politics, not cosmic meaning) and maybe that's why she hates Farah so much. In some way, he has reminded her of that fact.
He does. I don't disagree with what Farah said. But I do disagree with how he's handling it. A private phone call to Ann would have been the best way to go. Why publicize it knowing that the Left will then use it to highlight some "rift" among conservatives?
So, what is gained by making her a pariah?How is uninviting her to a meeting that she claims now she was never invited to in the first place making her a pariah?
She's the one who flipped out. She's the one who has become unhinged over this.
I actually have no problem with her speaking at the faggot-con... but I also have no problem with Farah uninviting her to his own shindig.
Why did she have to get so freaking emotional about it?
She doesn't get emotional over the thousands of travesties she reports on that the liberals are doing to America... but she gets emotional over this?
Unhinged.
Maybe I am misreading what I am hearing then, but it sounds to me like people really are looking to ostracize her. The rhetoric is pretty stern and seems focussed not on just disagreement, but seemingly much more to me. But, again, I may be wrong, and if so then please forget I said anything.
If you consider releasing SELECTED excerpts of private communications to bolster your own point the "high ground", then you might have a point...
Good point! I don’t agree with everything Farah or Ann say, but they are both with us far more often than they’re against us. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t discuss whether a particular act is right or wrong, but it does mean we shouldn’t write either of them off. They’re both allies.
Are they asking for special rights as a group? This is not the same.
Farah has a right to his opinion. You don't agree with his opinion. Fine. But he has a right to give it and explain. THAT'S called FREEDOM. You back Coulters right to speak to whomever she likes and take their money. Give Farrah the same right.
I actually have no problem with her speaking at the faggot-con... but I also have no problem with Farah uninviting her to his own shindig.
Oh, I agree. He has every right to invite and uninvite. I don't see any problem with that. I was thinking more about the tone on FreeRepublic and other such places in general. That is what confuses me. Somebody up the thread a bit said he/she was "writing her off" and called her a RINO. To me that seems pariah-ish, if you know what I mean. But, again, I really might very well be wrong, as I am just going on what I seem to be picking up on around these forums.
You heard the news that for a very narrow class of girls with indeterminant genitalia they now have a drug that will reduce the incidence of lesbianism.
The rest of it is coming.
In the future there will be no homosexuals ~ they have to prepare for that now and get right with God ~ Who will chose His own prophets as he sees fit.
Coulter is affirming the sin and legitimizing the agenda of GOProud.
I disagree with Coulters choice on Homocon. But I was never a "fan". I don't follow any pundits/commentators.
They’re both allies.
Absolutely. Given the tiny number of people out there really working for conservative ideas, when compared with the many who are on the other side in the media and such, we really need all we can get. For that reason I don't understand why people are making a big deal out of this. It seems a bad time to start sniping amongst ourselves.
I doubt it because she was likely speaking to conservative groups within those universities.
Of course it's the same. Ann is routinely shouted down and denounced at liberal universities. Liberals don't believe in her free speech rights. Has Farah ever criticized liberals when they did this?
Farah has a right to his opinion.
I disagree with how he communicated said opinion, not the opinion itself.
You don't agree with his opinion. Fine. But he has a right to give it and explain. THAT'S called FREEDOM.
See previous post
You back Coulters right to speak to whomever she likes and take their money. Give Farrah the same right.
Farah has the right to denounce a speech Ann hasn't given yet and then hyberbolically conclude that it's the end of Western Civilization as we know it?
Coulter wields no official power. How is she legitimizing this group?
Didn’t President Ronald Reagan once say something to the effect of someone who agrees with me 80% of the time is not my 20% enemy? Ann Coulter does not agree with me 100% of the time (only I agree with me 100% of the time), but that does not make her not a conservative. It just makes her wrong once in a while.
Yeah, i am much the same. She is okay, usually right, but I am not a “fan.” As for Romney, well I don’t much worry about that. Lots of people picked losers, and there were worse out there than Romney. It seems to me that Coulter is a pragmatist, and I figure the best shot at winning in her book is going to be the course she thinks is best. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if she picked Romney simply because she thought he had the best chance to win in that particular race. But, maybe not. And, in any case, I won’t second guess her too much on that one. McCain certainly wasn’t the best choice, and apparently more people picked him. Go figure.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.