You are wrong. It was Coulter who made the anti-Semitic statements. Deutsch acted correctly in immediately confronting her over her statements.

“The development of special interest groups is absolutely essential for collectivist policies.”

This has nothing to do with special interest groups or collectivist policies. It is about Ann Coulter’s anti-Semitism.

Well, correct me if I’m wrong, Al, but Danny Deutsch and Meredieth Veiera are the ones that started shoving it in people’s faces. And they get traction from that because they know there is hyper-sensitivity out there and a torch carrying mob will result – which is exactly what happened.

Al, I respect your point of view on this but, respectfully, I believe that the level of victim recognition and sensitivity you call for is dysfunctional in practice. Not that there is anything wrong with your intent – I know it is good – I just think that your desired outcome can achieved that way – and what can actually be achieved counts more to me than the intent.

Personally, I think the root cause lies in the institutionalization of special interest groups. The development of special interest groups is absolutely essential for collectivist policies. If we are going to engage in shuffling people’s assets from one set of groups to another set of groups, then groups have to be defined, both culturally and institutionally. And an ethics code has to develop to guide decisions on the relative value between the groups to determine how the collective bounty is going to be split up.

So, IMO, the more collectivism you have, the more tension between groups that vie for its resources. The more tension, the more sensitivity.

Personally, I believe this flap over Ann Coulter is a symptom – not the cause. My hope is that enough reason remains so that we can all keep our eye on the ball.

“But in either case, don’t infer that there is any intent to use force or deny liberty.”
No, not directly. But as we’ve seen it doesn’t take much for it to seem logical to those who think this a respectable notion to think a little coercion could go a long way.

“So, as Coulter says, Christians see themselves as perfected Jews. She didn’t say that Jews have to see Christians as perfected Jews – only that Christians do.”
Any way you want to look at it, it sounds pretty condescending and has an implication of a norm, which in my mind doesn’t exist, and certainly has no rational basis. The notion of Christians being perfected anything is, on the face of it absurd.

“Nor does she say that Jews should feel bad about or be offended or see themselves as less than perfect. ”
She doesn’t have to.

“Indeed, to the extent that a Jew does not accept the fundamental premise of Christianity in the first place, what Christians think of themselves should be irrelevant to Jews.”
Somehow, given the history of Christain Jewish relations the notion that Jews should be indifferent to Christian views of them seems a bit naive.
“But in any case, how she sees herself in the context of her religious beliefs is nobody’s business but hers.”
Then why open her yap about it? I’m not interested in what is her personal business, but if she shoves it in my face it becomes my business?

“But the use of the term “perfect” regarding New Testament relationship with God, as well as the idea of a Christian being a “perfected Jew” describing the evolution from Jew to Christian into the new relationship, is as old as any analysis that can be found.”
Sure. As old as anti-semitism. Does that make it a valid idea or something to be incorporated into an idea for this nation.

First and foremost, let me straighten out some context. I am barely religious in terms of practice. That is, I do not regularly go to church, I do not spend any time trying to convert people to anything, and I do not think that government should administer the morality of any religion.

That is why, after pasting the bible quote, I went to great pains to say that I was not trying to proselytize.

I am as far from a conservative Christian as you can get. In the first instance, I consider myself a classical liberal and, in the second instance, I am not completely “done yet” but, at this point, I am way closer to an Ayn Rand objectivist than a Jerry Falwell Christian.

Having said that, I was raised in a Judaea-Christian culture and have spent enough time studying the Bible to have a sense of some of its most fundamental tenets.

Specifically, in this case, the idea that the Old Testament was about the masses knowing God through laws that were given to them by a few men who interpreted them based on what they understood from their direct relationship with God. And then, the New Testament being a huge change in that now the masses themselves have a direct relationship with God (through Jesus) – thus eliminating any issues there might be with the previous mode of man’s interpretation and enforcement.

That’s it, plain and simple. I don’t believe this is something that I can defend with one Bible passage and then you can come along and totally refute with another. Nor do I think that anyone would debate it. If you think this basic idea is not the case, then fine – we will have to agree to disagree. It is not a subtlety, it is a fundamental.
So in the first verse of what I pasted, God finds fault with the people and says that, to fix it, he will make a new covenant. So, when something has a fault and you fix it, another way of expressing it is that you have perfected it. Really, the more concise passage would have been just verses 7 and 8:

7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

So again, my point is, for those people who might have thought she came up with the idea to be hateful, that it is actually part of the teaching – and there is nothing intrinsically hateful or offensive about it. Christianity is about an evolution – a progress towards something better. Again, basic stuff – if you don’t like Christianity, that’s up to you. But don’t shoot me – I’m just the messenger.

So then in the 11th verse they talk about how he is going to fix it and that is by having direct relationships with everyone – no more of this stuff about one man telling another – from here on out, we are going the direct route:

11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.

And again, I am not arguing the merits of Christianity – I am simply providing a reasoned description of what it is about.

So the bottomline is, with the new covenant, believers will get it straight from the source, perfectly, no chance of static or imperfections introduced in the translation. Therefore, the people of the new covenant are perfected in their knowledge of God.

Now, in the section of the transcript that you pasted, in the third to the last line, she says, “Yeah. You have to obey.” And then you say, “How much more obvious does she have to be about her intentions?”. I am assuming that your interpretation is that she is saying that others have to obey her or Christianity. In other words, yea, you have to do this.

But that’s not the case and, if that is what you are thinking, you completely missed what was going on. She is referring to the fact that, per the Old Testament, Jews have to obey the laws, whereas Christians get their laws straight from the God. She reiterates this a couple of lines later (after the part you pasted) when she says, “Do you know what Christianity is? We believe your religion, but you have to obey….We have the fast-track program.”

Then, when Deutsch goes over the top and asks, ““Let’s wipe Israel off the earth.” I mean, what, no Jews?”,

She responds with, “No…we just want Jews to be perfected, as they say.”

Exactly. That is exactly what Christians want and it is what they are. So, in this sense, are we arguing about Ann Coulter or about Christianity? But in either case, don’t infer that there is any intent to use force or deny liberty.

So, as Coulter says, Christians see themselves as perfected Jews. She didn’t say that Jews have to see Christians as perfected Jews – only that Christians do. Nor does she say that Jews should feel bad about or be offended or see themselves as less than perfect. Jews are free to see themselves however they want. Indeed, to the extent that a Jew does not accept the fundamental premise of Christianity in the first place, what Christians think of themselves should be irrelevant to Jews. But in any case, how she sees herself in the context of her religious beliefs is nobody’s business but hers.

Finally, Deutsch’s whole finishing blow was a dramatic, “Wow, you didn’t really say that, did you?”, implying that she just made the whole perfection thing up. And, I would say, most consumers of mass media who are in this debate right now have that impression and are arguing based on it. But the use of the term “perfect” regarding New Testament relationship with God, as well as the idea of a Christian being a “perfected Jew” describing the evolution from Jew to Christian into the new relationship, is as old as any analysis that can be found.

So from a perspective that uses some knowledge of the Bible and nothing more than rational observation, this is what I saw happen. So it is what it is. If you don’t like the workings of religion fine – but I’m not all that comfortable with a culture doesn’t want people talking about it.

“We should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity.” (Talking about the justification of action in the Middle East)

“We need somebody to put rat poisoning in Justice Stevens’ creme brulee.”

“If I’m going to say anything about John Edwards in the future, I’ll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot.”

“My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building.”

If this “woman” is any advertisement for Christianity – put me down as “opposed”.

DEUTSCH: “…you said I should not — we should just throw Judaism away and we should all be Christians, then, or – ”

COULTER: Yeah.

DEUTSCH: Really?

COULTER: Well, it’s a lot easier. It’s kind of a fast track.

DEUTSCH: Really?

COULTER: Yeah. You have to obey.

DEUTSCH: You can’t possibly believe that.

COULTER: Yes.

How much more obvious does she have to be about her intentions? It’s no wonder people are leaving Christianity in droves.

Anonymous – Ann Coulter and “intellectual integrity” should never been in the same sentence together. Plus, the fact that you blanket Biblical studies as the same in all churches is erroneous. So, should everything the Bible be taken as face value? Even the passages that contradict the other passages? Even the passages that have no basis in scientific fact?

As an existentialist, however, I don’t think any of them are correct.

She never stated a desire to coerce anyone into Christianity. That would be offensive.

>>You defend Coulter’s hate-speech>>

With all due respect Ron, I think your argument is coming unglued. You are now projecting intentions on what she said. I cannot see anywhere in the transcript, nor on her face (I saw the interview) where I could assume hatred (or any other feeling) towards others on her part.

She said she thinks that everyone should be Christian. She did not say if you are not Christian I hate you. You are implying she said that and that is the “dark implication” myth that I am talking about that is driving this media event.

The myth is created and assumed to be true because she is Ann Coulter and there is already a pop cultural assumption that she is evil. So, regardless of what she says, her motives must be evil. Therefore, her speech is hate speech. Sorry Ron, I don’t buy it.

That is neither Defending Liberty or Enlightened Thought.

That’s not what I’m saying at all. Your analogy is quite fallacious, ignoring what Coulter actually said about how everyone should be Christian

“Well, maybe and maybe not – but even if it is, what you are suggesting is that speech be curbed so as not incite others into violence. That’s going to make it a pretty quiet place.”

I have said absolutely nothing about curbing anyone’s speech. You defend Coulter’s hate-speech and then forget the fact that others have the right to criticize what she said.

So if you say that drinking coffee black is good and using cream is evil and that everyone should drink coffee black and not use cream – and then because I feel the opposite, I go out and kill you – then no one after you should speak about their moral preference for black coffee, or how and why they think the world would be a better place if everyone did the same?

If that is the model, who is in control?