“Hearing Dennis Prager defend Ann Coulter on his radio show today was not entirely unexpected, given Dennis’s overall clarity of thought and intellectual honesty. I think he made a very good argument on her behalf. Her statement was not thought through for possible impact. (What does she ever say that is?) It was counter-productive, and the overall result is, whatever she meant to say, a net-negative for a bunch of issues we conservatives care about. But, as Prager astutely pointed out, her statement certainly wasn’t what it’s being made out to be…”
Meanwhile, Mark Shea writes from a different perspective. Coulter’s defenders are writing, “Ann was just saying what she and many Christians believe and is now being pilloried for it, as usual.” Shea counters that some, but not all, of Coulter’s theology itself is faulty:
“It is here that the extreme impoverishment of the media on such matters immediately began to be manifest on both sides of the conversation, but especially Coulter’s. Deutsch is astonished, apparently unaware that it was Jesus, not Coulter, who said to make disciples of all nations and baptize them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Had Coulter simply pointed that out and moved on, what happened next could have been avoided. But Ann being Ann, that wasn’t going to happen. So instead the train wreck begins. (…)
“Here’s the deal, Ann. The whole point of the Epistle to the Romans is that law and order — though an important part of the Republican platform and a very good thing — cannot save us. It can only point to our need to be saved. For this reason, Paul never encourages the believer to consider himself a perfected Christian or a perfected Jew (which is probably what the now-flustered pundit meant to say). The whole question ‘Who’s more perfect?’ would have sent Paul into gales of laughter. For Paul, the thought of fallen human beings fighting over who is more perfect would be like the patients of a cancer ward squabbling about who is the least terminal.”
More from my site
