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 ...
Yea, I think they're one of the ones that have lost their way on homosexual issues.
The more I read Joseph Farah (and about him), the more I keep saying “He’s one helluva good man.”
It would be kinda rude don't you think to be a keynote speaker for a house warming party and then to say it looks like a pig pen? Not gonna happen.
Too bad Ronald Reagan is dead, I am sure he could have used instruction from you as to what a conservative is. Afterall, he was foolish enough to say the following:
"Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are travelling the same path."
“It would be kinda rude don’t you think to be a keynote speaker for a house warming party and then to say it looks like a pig pen? Not gonna happen.”
I don’t think it would be rude at all. Unless they know something I don’t know, they have invited her to speak as a conservative and know what her views are. Ann, as I can tell, does not mince words and pretty much speaks her mind. If I were speaking, I would definetely speak as to my conservative values and how they relate to todays America but would also address the issues that I disagree with them on. From what I have seen of Ann she certainly isn’t timid about speaking her mind.
As I have said before, I will reserve judgement untill I know more about what she intends to say.
“Do you honestly think she’s going to tell them about Sodom and Gomorrah?”
Like I said, I have absolutely no idea what she is going to say. I could also ask, do you have any indication that she will not?
I could also ask, do you have any indication that she will not?
Does she give sermons or entertain?
She is giving them legitimacy by recognizing them. Why is a "conservative icon" speaking to a radical homosexual group? And lashing out at someone that called her on it? Why is she happy about being the "Judy Garland of the right"?
The perception out there is that this validates them.
"This is how institutions evolve and emerge within a conservative culture," says Jon Henke, a libertarian-leaning blogger. "In time, gay people will be married, extending the valuable social institution of marriage to more people. In time, conservatives will argue that the positive impact that marriage has on the gay community is further evidence of the importance of the institution of marriage."
Change has come gradually, and it's worth noting that Coulter's decision to speak at HomoCon is merely the latest example of prominent conservatives (of all ages) lending, at least, tacit support to the cause of gay rights.
Or are you trying to tell me that she'll take their money then insult them? Would that be honorable?
Well for the branch that's into sadomasochistic activities, it might be a step on the road to recovery to pay just to get insulted, instead of slapped around... ;)
Well, everybody but one guy.
But the distraction is focusing attention on him and WND. Which may be what he really wanted all along.
“Or are you trying to tell me that she’ll take their money then insult them? Would that be honorable?”
Honorable?? Unless they have given her specific do’s and don’ts, and she agreed to them, it’s honorable to speak about what she believes as they have given her the platform. I would suggest that if she has strong opinions or disagreements with their platform it would be a dishonor to herself not to address them.
Ha! I never thought of that! lol
And you don't think it's dishonorable to accept their money and "diss" them? I do. She should not have accepted. It sends the wrong message. She's not an evangelist either. That's not why she's appearing.
And you completely ignored that people see her appearance as acceptance of militant homosexuals. It recognizes who they are. You ignored that it gives them credence as "conservatives" when they are not.
What one generation condones, the next practices.
You have also ignored her reaction. Calling people fake Christians because they disagree with her is over the top and uncalled for. And usually a guilty reaction.
“And you don’t think it’s dishonorable to accept their money and “diss” them? I do.”
No I don’t. They knew before they invited her that she is not afraid to speak her mind. They also have adequate information as to her views on the conservative agenda. Unless they know, which I don’t, that she agrees with some or all parts of their agenda they have invited her to speak about what she believes. If that includes disagreement with parts or much of their agenda they have given her every right to speak her mind.
“That’s not why she’s appearing.”
Unless you have information that I don’t, we can have no idea as to why she has agreed to speak. I certainly don’t have any inside information on her reasons or objectives. I have simply stated that until I know what she intends to accomplish I will reserve judgment.
“And you completely ignored that people see her appearance as acceptance of militant homosexuals.”
I haven’t ignored that at all. I simply disagree that accepting an invitation to speak somehow indicates ones acceptance of their agenda.
“Calling people fake Christians because they disagree with her is over the top and uncalled for.”
Now there’s a comment that one could discuss at length. The definition of what a Christian is varies on ones viewpoint and beliefs. I could go on and on how I disagree with the Catholic faith and practices. Does that give me the right to say that they are not Christians? What truly is a Christian? Does it mean that if one believes that Jesus is part of the trinity, one with the Father, and that the belief that He is our only Savior without regards for our works makes one a Christian? There are many denominations and differing beliefs that all claim to be Christian. Even the definition of “followers of Christ” leaves openings for differences. While I agree that calling a person a fake Christian is ill advised perhaps, I would need to understand what the person who made that statement believes a Christian to be and what the person she said that to believes as well. I think the term Christian has all too often been loosely applied.
All in all, I believe that to judge a person before knowing what that persons intentions or motivations are should be considered premature.
They love her. I'll go get the Tweets if you want to read them. She's either going to "diss" them AFTER she gets thier money. How nice! Or she's going to play nice with them. Either one is unacceptable. "Conservative icons" shouldn't be giving recognition to radical liberal homosexual groups.
Unless you have information that I don’t, we can have no idea as to why she has agreed to speak.
Use the whole quote: She's not an evangelist either. That's not why she's appearing.
So you think she's an evangelist?
I have simply stated that until I know what she intends to accomplish I will reserve judgment.
She intends to entertain radical homosexuals and get paid.
I haven’t ignored that at all. I simply disagree that accepting an invitation to speak somehow indicates ones acceptance of their agenda.
Because it doesn't reinforce your POV. Others see it quite differently in the article that I posted.
I think the term Christian has all too often been loosely applied.
You even have to excuse and explain away her untoward reaction. You Coulter fans are too much. You just can't admit/accept that she could be wrong. I'm so glad I'm not a "fan" of anyone.
“You Coulter fans are too much.”
I’m not a Coulter fan. I have thought many times that things she says are reactionary, flippant, and many times abbrasive, even to the extent of being dingy.
My whole premiss is that untill I know what a persons reasonings and purposes are I will withhold judgement.
That’s all? Nothing about the rest of it?
And it doesn't matter what the reasoning or purpose is if the action is the wrong one. Humans can reason away all sorts of wrong choices.
You mean the fiscally "conservative" Log Cabin RINOs who - per the evidence of the imploding, systemically corrupted, and demoralized financial infrastructure - weren't?
The issue is demoralization and ideological subversion."What it basically means is: to change the perception of reality of every American that despite of the abundance of information no one is able to come to sensible conclusions in the interest of defending themselves, their families, their community, and their country.It's a great brainwashing process which goes very slow and is divided into four basic stages.The first stage being "demoralization"...."---KGB Defector Yuri Bezmenov
You mean the fiscally "conservative" Log Cabin RINOs who - per the evidence of the imploding, systemically corrupted, and demoralized financial infrastructure - weren't?
I am sorry, but I am afraid I don't quite follow what you mean here? I don't think I am familiar with the phrase "Log Cabin RINO." Would you bring me up to speed on that?
But, in the meantime, I should say that I think people may be getting the wrong idea about my position on these things, given some of the responses. I don't think people should stop pursuing the values that matter to them, most especially conservatives. My values are conservative values, and so I would like to see them promoted whenever possible. And Ann Coulter usually does this, probably as often as do other people in the public square. She gets things wrong, of course, and always has, and I am perfectly okay with disagreeing with her. Heck, I have done it many times. I am just stating that I think some of the rhetoric is too strong given that she is right most of the time.
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.