Comments on: Update II: Canadian Anti-Coulter Cretins Crave ‘Positive Space’

By: Barbara Grant

Barbara Grant — Thu, 25 Mar 2010 23:00:48 +0000

I wanted to respond to Myron’s comment, “if all Jews converted, it would mean the end of the Jewish religion.” I’d note that many Jewish believers in Yeshua as Messiah observe the same religious rituals and traditions as those who do not believe Yeshua is Messiah. The latter group is waiting for the Messiah’s coming; the former believe the Messiah has already appeared.

Not only do America’s evangelical Christians respect and honor the Jewish people, many do their utmost to incorporate Jewish traditions (such as Passover) into their own practice.

Regardless, I understand that many Jews are upset about the subject of conversion, equating it with liquidation. This comes from the European background. America’s evangelicals pray for all to accept Jesus as Lord, realizing that conversion comes from a move of the Holy Spirit, and can never be forced.

By: Myron Pauli

Myron Pauli — Thu, 25 Mar 2010 19:28:17 +0000

Most people are fine with “free speech” for speech that they LIKE (such as David Irving’s Holocaust denial in Iran) or tolerate (insipid blather like David Brooks opeds) but draw the line at speech they despise such as Irving’s speech in Austria (a Greenwald point), Coulter to a PC leftist, or sexuality to a religious person. Thus, I credit Greenwald with defending Coulter right to speak in Canada unmolested by censors – better than 90% of leftists would grant Coulter.

I personally find her to sometimes be snide and nasty, although not calling for acts of violence. The former gets included in the general rubric of hate speech by the politically correct.

Even when avoiding nastiness, a specific EXAMPLE of how Coulter drives many “ballistic” is her advocating Jewish conversion. Naturally, if a Christian believes that only Christians rise to heaven and LIKES Jewish people, then she SHOULD wish for conversion. Conversion certainly does resemble the eliminationism of the Nazis. Nor does she advocate FORCIBLE conversion (e.g. the Inquisition). On the other hand, if all Jews converted, it would mean the end of the Jewish religion. So while advocating conversion is NOT really hate speech, it upsets many Jews.

By: George Pal

George Pal — Thu, 25 Mar 2010 15:26:15 +0000

There is no ruthlessness that can’t be made more ruthless by the addition of self-righteous good intentions. The thugs, campus freelancers and ex officio Commission members, have a moral high ground so high they can no longer recognize anything other than their own moral superiority. Doesn’t bode well for miscreants (in both the contemporary and archaic use of the term).

By: Myron Pauli

Myron Pauli — Thu, 25 Mar 2010 14:01:45 +0000

I love the “Frank A-Houle” from Ann. She can be a knee-jerk namecaller but sometimes there are diamonds among the Coulterian manure. Nevertheless, her right to be obnoxious is sacred to me and fortunately a few (too few) on the left like Greenwald and Hentoff defend real free speech:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/greenwald/greenwald62.html [You call this a decent or even principled defense? The trendy worship of this sanctimonious worm escapes me.]

On the other side are the liberals tying Coulter and everyone in one basket of violent/bigoted/extremism ( see my post on http://barelyablog.com/?p=23361 ):

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/24/house-of-anger/

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/24/opinion/24dowd.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/23/opinion/23herbert.html

and that is just for starters. You can hear threats against Stupak or Hoyer in the Washington Post. The media drumbeat will grow louder like a mainstream “Bolero” [nice] against the non-neocon, non-mainstream right.

Yes, Frank A-Hole was merely defending tolerant Canada against Coulter, a known abortion clinic bomber, Nazi murderess of Jews, poisoner of Hispanics, castrater of gays, enslaver of blacks, and defiler of the great Religion of Peace. [So why is Greenwald—who calls her all these things, but puts himself on a pedestal by allowing her her ostensible hate—so principled?!] That is how the game is played. Oppose the Federal Reserve and you are the Oklahoma City Bomber. Criticizing Social Security is the same as denying that men walked on the Moon. Free speech is for anyone from Kennedy to Kristol but, outside those boundaries, you must be silenced for tolerant free speech to prevail.

By: james huggins

james huggins — Thu, 25 Mar 2010 12:53:22 +0000

What illogical tripe. The only thing wrong with these students, and their professors, is a lack of indoctrination in the facts of life in the real world. They are products of an education system based on myth and and wishful thinking. Thinking themselves wise they became foolish.

By: Derek

Derek — Thu, 25 Mar 2010 06:28:08 +0000

Liberating tolerance, then, would mean intolerance against movements from the Right and toleration of movements from the Left. I have just started to pick up on Herbert Marcuse, but his 1965 essay, Repressive Tolerance, really seems like the playbook being used by the other side. I guess Ann got a major dose of it Tuesday. Repressive Tolerance