1

Joe wrote;

For example, at the Washington Briefing, Richard Land said that he’d vote for a Jewish pro-life politician who promised to raise his taxes before he’d vote a Christian pro-choice candidate who promised to cut them. The rousing applause he received would be as disturbing to most Republicans as it would to most Democrats.

Do I misunderstand you? I find that line to be rather applause worthy. I too would rather vote for a Jewish pro-lifer than a Christian pro-choicer.

What's disturbing about that?

I propose that we start with the obnoxious, hate-spewing Ann Coulter.

Ann Coulter can be very annoying when I do not agree with her, but obnoxious and hate-spewing? I don't see it nor do I see the need to purge her from the Republican party, although I wouldn't invite her to speak at my Church either.

I can't help but think you'd want to purge Ann Coulter but are willing to give Andrew Sullivan a pass and call him your brother in Christ. You temper your criticism of Andrew Sullivan by making sure everyone is clear that you believe him to be your brother, but you do not temper your criticism of Coulter.

I think you should be more consistent in this area if you start to advocate the purging of the party and you want me to listen.

2

Ann Coulter can be abrasive, sarcastic, and condescending, but I don't see why you characterize her as "hate-spewing." Can you go into more detail on that point, Joe?

3

I thought Ann's speech was okay, not the best one she's given, but okay. I don't agree that she's a hate spewing person either....and dare I say that the crowd that was lined up to get their books signed by her, which as you know, she wasn't able to make a dent in, apparently think she's pretty okay. Including FRC's very own Peter Spriggs who was standing in line.

I think you need to loosen up Joe :)

4

I have one more comment about Ann, why didn't you mention anywhere in your post Joe, what it is that Ann said that you consider hate spewing? That might be helpful so people can see what you consider hate.

On the other hand, Sean Hannity, doing numerous Clinton jokes and gesturing his hand like he's masturbating, I dont' see you complaining about....why is that? I personally, call that disgusting and offensive - not hateful, but that in my book is certainly worse than anything Ann said at the conference.

Just something to think about.

5

Eric I don't see it nor do I see the need to purge her from the Republican party,...

Coulter can be a Republican. She just needs to stop calling herself a "religious conservative."

Puddle Pirate Can you go into more detail on that point, Joe?

I seriously need to give examples? Well, okay. How about...

* "liberals are always against America. They are either traitors or idiots..."
* "I think we ought to nuke North Korea right now just to give the rest of the world a warning."
* "Press passes can't be that hard to come by if the White House allows that old Arab Helen Thomas to sit within yards of the President."
* "We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too."
* "My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times building."
* "Frankly, I'm not a big fan of the First Amendment."
* "We need somebody to put rat poisoning in Justice Stevens' creme brulee."

Let's be honest. If Michael Moore had suggested murdering a Supreme Court Justice we wouldn't think he was just being "sarcastic."

I'm disturbed and a bit ashamed of all those who are excusing her behavior.

6

This whole post also brings up another question for me, to pose to you Joe, and it's this...

What is worse, how the Christian right isn't always perfect in presentation, or the lack of grace we Christians tend to give each other?

I recall two years ago when I began my company, you contracted with me to receive a few books from me, with the promise that you'd read and review the books. You never delivered, even after smiling to me at last years GodBlogCon and promising me again, that you would. You never did.

So is the word of a man who says one thing and doesn't follow through as big a sin as some of the hate filled things you feel about Ann? Or is what you perceive in her to be so hateful not as bad as how I feel when someone lies to me about a commitment to keep their word?

Maybe we should be erring more on the grace side and remembering that none of us is perfect and shooting our own is exactly what the enemy wants us to do.

7

Joe wrote;

Coulter can be a Republican. She just needs to stop calling herself a "religious conservative."

Alright, so you want to purge her from the ranks of the religious conservatives. Not sure how you do that exactly but alright.

I seriously need to give examples? Well, okay. How about...

Hmmm, i'm pretty sure in my time here on this earth ive said and done worse things than Ann Coulter. I suppose I should be glad that i'm not in the public eye as much as she is, or else you would want to purge me also from the ranks of the religious conservatives.

I'm disturbed and a bit ashamed of all those who are excusing her behavior.

Let's be clear here, we aren't discussing her behavior, are we? We are discussing her words. After all, she hasn't formed a secret society to poison one of the Supreme Court Justices, has she?

What I find most interesting is some of your choices. You want to purge her from the ranks of the religious conservatives because she wrote

"Frankly, I'm not a big fan of the First Amendment."??

Why does that mean someone needs to be purged?

or

"liberals are always against America. They are either traitors or idiots..."

Writing that, or even thinking that about liberals (Have you read what Mummon writes on here?) means we should be purged from the ranks of the religious conservatives?

and

"I think we ought to nuke North Korea right now just to give the rest of the world a warning."

I suppose for you she sounds too glib in saying this but I actually agree with it. I believe that waging a "soft" war ends up costing more blood and treasure than a nasty war. That we need to be so horrific when we decide to go to war (Which should be seldom if at all) that people fear us and our abilities to destroy them.

I suppose because I agree with the sentiment that we should use nuclear weapons against our enemies you want to purge me now from the ranks of the religious conservatives.

"Press passes can't be that hard to come by if the White House allows that old Arab Helen Thomas to sit within yards of the President."

Was this one just to make your list longer?

8

Ann's over the top rhetorically. It's her shtick. If I thought she meant it, I'd agree with you. She never called Dwight Eisenhower "a conscious and dedicated agent of the international communist conspiracy." I'd criticize Ann but I'm not ready to anathematize her political burlesque.

Other than the Ann thing, your post is rich in ideas that are much more important. Interesting that the commenters (including me) don't have much to say about the important stuff, such as torture.

You're right, and yet the righty blogosphere hounds are howling after John McCain on this one.

9

Great stuff, Joe. I especially like "It is not enough to simply baptize the conservative agenda; our political beliefs must be derived from our Biblical worldview." Absolutely right.

For those of you who thought Joe was less than clear on Ann Coulter, I recommend reading http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/archives/001823.html

A number of other articles are also available here:

http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/archives/001823.html

10

Keith,

As far as I can tell your two links lead to the same place.

11

"In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, love."

Brilliant. Nice stand on torture, Joe. I agree.

12

Bravo, Joe! I said before that my opinion of the FRC went up quite a bit when they hired you. Now I'm beginning to expect great things...

13

I'm particularly pleased that you're willing to speak up about Ann Coulter's "schtick." And I'm amazed that some commenters can read a series of quotations expressing

* a desire for mass slaughter of civilians "just to give the rest of the world a warning";

* racism ("that old Arab")

* a desire to threaten political opponents with execution

* a yen to see terrorist activity directed at the New York Times

* a wish for the assassination of a Supreme Court justice

14

The gratuitous smear of centrists and progressives aside (nobody thinks of your quote of Lincoln's words either repugnant or embarassing, and it's hubris to imply otherwise), these words are welcome:

I can’t make excuses for us on this one anymore: We have to take a firm stand against torture. Yes, there is a debate about what exactly is meant by that term. So let’s define it in a way that consistent with our belief in human dignity. And then let’s hold every politician in the country to that standard. Our silence is embarrassing.

Now the current spin from the white house is "torture is unclear and we have to define it," but actually the Geneva conventions state how this is done, I am told.

Over at Kos today I have a diary which points out just how potentially serious the issue is for the United States, and why Bush and Company are fighting tooth and nail to cover their tracks (and why they might ultimately fail). Also see this excellent line of thinking about why Bush wants this power to torture.

And remember one thing folks: Augusto Pinochet thought he could be immune from prosectuion when he gave himself immunity...it didn't work for him...

15

Joe, it's interesting that you say above, "If you find [these ideas] to be embarrassing truths, then you may be on the religious left," when Lincoln's words are front and center in the first chapter of Jim Wallis's God and Politics, and in context, I doubt that Jim Wallis is particularly embarrassed about affirming them. As is to be expected, no generalization is airtight.

16

I can’t make excuses for us on this one anymore: We have to take a firm stand against torture. Yes, there is a debate about what exactly is meant by that term. So let’s define it in a way that consistent with our belief in human dignity. And then let’s hold every politician in the country to that standard. Our silence is embarrassing.

I agree with much of what you say, especially the bit about "It is not enough to simply baptize the conservative agenda; our political beliefs must be derived from our Biblical worldview," but I'm not sure where you're going with the statement above on torture. For instance, I don't see how one could support the war (i.e., you aren't a pacifist) and oppose forms of coercion such as waterboarding. In supporting the war, you are supporting the brutal and violent (and necessary) killing of enemy fighters. Something such as waterboarding which causes physical discomfort but no injury can yield intelligence that can save lives on both sides by shortening the conflict. Opposing such methods on the grounds of "human dignity" seems to be a rather selective application of that ideal.

17

Eric asked:

(Joe) "For example, at the Washington Briefing, Richard Land said that he’d vote for a Jewish pro-life politician who promised to raise his taxes before he’d vote a Christian pro-choice candidate who promised to cut them. The rousing applause he received would be as disturbing to most Republicans as it would to most Democrats."

Do I misunderstand you? I find that line to be rather applause worthy. I too would rather vote for a Jewish pro-lifer than a Christian pro-choicer.

What's disturbing about that?

I don't think JOE thought it was disturbing, but that Republicans would find it disturbing - that the Religious Right shouldn't be counted on to back the Republicans on all issues. Our support is often assumed by Republicans (and to be fair, that's because we have supported them on just about everything). We need to be clear that we will support the candidate that agrees with our principals.

18

Mumon, what Joe said is that the Lincoln quote has three assumptions that are regularly derided by secularists, even if the quote itself is regularly praised. That doesn't amount to saying that all or even most centrists and liberals will be offended by the quote.

Rev. Mike, I don't think Joe had Wallis in mind when he said the religious left might find the quote embarassing. Wallis is an evangelical political liberal. I think he was talking about mainline liberals who are also religiously liberal. I've seen many criticisms from such people against Bush's statements along the lines of Lincoln's.

19

"I suppose for you she sounds too glib in saying this but I actually agree with it. I believe that waging a "soft" war ends up costing more blood and treasure than a nasty war."

well you're probably right about the blood and TREASURE being saved by a "nasty" war (although for the life of me i ve never heard anyone caught in a middle of any war refering to them as ANYTHING but nasty). The cost of doing it your way would merely be our humanity...although i doubt that what little you have would constitute such a great loss anyway.

"That we need to be so horrific when we decide to go to war (Which should be seldom if at all) that people fear us and our abilities to destroy them. "

I m pretty freaking sure the 100 000+ people we killed in Iraq so that US companies could have juicy reconstruction contracts thought we were horrific enough.

20

"In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, love."

Nice speech...too bad you people rarely if ever practice what you preach.

21

Not long ago a friend and I heard Ann Coulter come on the radio. He expressed his disgust that she got any airtime at all. I agreed she's mean-spirited but a useful pitbull, necessary to offset the dozens on the left who share her demeanor.

However, Joe is right, and I'm not proud of my rationalization. Ann may be a religious conservative, but she does not behave either Godly or Christ-like. She has every right to call herself a Republican. However, Christians have no biblical justification for defending her antics.

22

Nice thoughts on torture, Joe. Glad you're coming around. I'll continue to dispute the suggestion that we need to have "a debate" on what constitutes torture. If you even have to think about it, it's torture.

By the way, here's an interesting quote from today's NYT about your Values Voter event:

Even in this crowd of nearly 2,000 Christian conservative activists, some balked at one tactic recommended to turn out church voters. In a workshop, Connie Marshner, a veteran organizer, distributed a step-by-step guide that recommended obtaining church directories and posing as a nonpartisan pollster to ask people how they planned to vote.

“Hello, I am with ABC polls,” a suggested script began.

Charming. Utterly charming, and so downright wholesome!

23

George 2 wrote;

Ann may be a religious conservative, but she does not behave either Godly or Christ-like.

Do you behave Godly or Christ-like?

However, Christians have no biblical justification for defending her antics.

I hope you do not think i'm defending her antics so much as opposing Joe's position that she needs to be "purged" from the group known as religious conservatives.

I believe that Ann Coulter is probably a sexually active woman. I don't know if this is true but I suspect it might be. However, she isn't out there telling everyone to be sexually active outside of marriage. She isn't preaching for people to behave like she does. As a matter of fact, her life appears to me to be pretty private. I dunno what she does with her free time because she doesn't seem to talk about it much.

On the other hand you have Andrew Sullivan out there proudly proclaiming his homosexual activities all the while saying its alright to be so and combining that with his Christianity. Joe calls Andrew Sullivan a brother in Christ.

So i'd like to see some consistency here. If we're going to purge Ann Coulter from the group known as religious conservatives, who else are we going to purge?

24

I see Jerry Falwell stole the spotlight.
All those political luminaries and religious celebrities and he comes out with a fews seconds of 40 minute speech that grabs the spotlight:

"The Rev. Jerry Falwell says a White House run by Sen Hillary Rodham Clinton would energize his base of religious conservatives even more than if the devil were the Democratic nominee.

"I certainly hope that Hillary is the candidate," Falwell told a private prayer breakfast. "Because nothing will energize my (constituency) like Hillary Clinton."

"If Lucifer ran, he wouldn't," Falwell added, drawing a roomful of laughs and cheers."

Then Falwell says he didn't intend to demonize the Senator. Oh. His constituency? Oh.

If the faithful are more afraid of Clinton then the devil, the faithful have a serious problem, don't they? That isn't even close to biblical.

Falwell stated Clinton had 300 mil in her campaign funds; the Center for Responsive Politics says she has 47 million.

Let's give Falwell the benefit of the doubt; he pulled 300 million out of the air, actually believed it or chose to mislead. Who knows? He hasn't apologized for giving 2000 attendees and the nation wrong information. Don't hold your breath.

This is quite the kicker: "I think we're going to keep the House and the Senate," he said. "I think the Lord will take care of that."

And if the Lord doesn't, who get's the blame?

This was a classic example of the religion of patriotism and exceptionalism from William Bennett:

Bennet stated : "When four Americans are hung and the city cheers, you take out Fallujah. You level the city...." Bennett then cited the example of the destruction of Hiroshima. Bennett's exhortation to mass collective punishment - the slaughter of hundreds or thousands of innocent civilians perhaps, or at least the destruction of their homes and cities - received enthusiastic applause."

Hiroshima doesn't strike most people as even close to the right analogy.

The predicted 17 thousand for the Pennsylvannia rally turned out to be 3 thousand. The Washington conference packed in 2000 to cheer their stars.

So what happens because you criticised this conference behavior Joe? Like Coulter they'll escalate, can't see your boss impressed with your blogging about this or leaving the room. I'd have resumes handy.
Childish name calling of the 'other' or the 'enemy' isn't even close to scriptural. But this really isn't about values and God is it?

James Dobson:

"This NUT stated there that they're working on nuclear weapons and they want to bring us down !... Do we believe 'em ? You know, Adolf Hitler in 1938 or 1939, wrote in Mein Kampf that, that, uh they were going to kill the Jews people - I mean they were, he was very clear about the assault that they were going to - make that he was going to make, and people didn't believe him. And now, we are told these things by Iran, by other Muslim countries, that uh they're going to destroy Israel, incinerate it, that they are going to take us down, and the liberals say whup du dee dee [ or something like that ]"

Both party committees put together the talking points and picked their respondents for the expected comments at the UN. Not good enough for Dobson, never good enough.

Another enemy: (Sears or Perkins)

"And remember, it's the same ACLU that's trying to limit your religious freedom, that is the number one censor of religious liberty in this country... that alliance is we were talking about the ACLU's challenges on national defense issues and I said there's one statistic - tragically in Iran - or Iraq - last year there were over 10,000 people killed by terrorist acts. There were zero killed in America. Something must be working here."

More US soldiers have died than civilians in 9/11. We won't mention Iraq and coalition deaths or the number of US wounded.

Dobson:

"With regard to the war on terror I really do see the War On Terror as a family values issues.... I'm not saying that all Muslims are violent [ but ] ... a small percentage of a very big number is a big number.... what if 4% want to take us down ?.... that are willing to give their LIVES for it ? What if it's 4 % - that's 48 million people in this world who want to kill us. What it if 1/10th of one percent ? We're in a war and it's time that we recognize it."

Glad Joe provided the Couter quotes. Keep up the conferences please, the more people see the boorish behavior and untamed tongues of the religious right, the better they'll be prepared to make decisions. I doubt most people of faith - those value volters - value this kind of demonizing from their religious celebrities.

Perkins at a Press Conference Friday:

"What it boils down to (is we) are Bible-believing Christians. That’s the demarcation. That’s the point of difference. And in that poll it shows that 22 percent of Americans believe the Bible. That is almost a quarter and the fact that’s almost the same number of people who were identified as value voters in the 2004 election. There is strength in numbers.

“We’re just encouraging Christians to say it’s OK to stand up and defend and proclaim the truth and we’re going to stand with you and we’re going to help you and together we will make a difference in this nation.”

Bible-believing is a term many who take the Bible literally use to describe themselves. It the same as fundamentalism, though that term seems to have fallen out of favor.

Perkins was essentially saying the BB Christians, his people, are real Christians because they “believe the Bible,” implying the other Christians really don’t so they aren’t real, a point he accentuated by saying "quote unquote evangelicals."

Why would I bother? Because I believe that if Canadians attended (have no reason to believe our home growns religious right didn't) they'll bring this potty mouth behavior home with them.(The RR in Canada doesn't discrimate against parties, they concertedly go after anyone who doesn't follow what they want, LPC, CPC, BQ, NDP, Green, even CHP.

25

Joe, great post. I agree with most of it.

Dan; If you can't understand how one can support war and not torture(even waterboarding), then you simply do not understand the warrior ethos. Providing compassion and dignity for our captured foes allows America to stand on the moral high ground when we oppose the torture of our own troops. It is, also, a long standing U.S. military priciple. When we fail to do so, we copromise our servicemen and women and expose them worse treatment then we can even think to do to our pow's. Physical coersion is one of the least effective methods of information gathering anyway. We don't need to redefine torture, its plain enough, we need to define the enemy and seek them out more effectively.

26

Stacy This whole post also brings up another question for me, to pose to you Joe, and it's this...What is worse, how the Christian right isn't always perfect in presentation, or the lack of grace we Christians tend to give each other?

Hold that thought…

I recall two years ago when I began my company, you contracted with me to receive a few books from me, with the promise that you'd read and review the books. You never delivered, even after smiling to me at last years GodBlogCon and promising me again, that you would. You never did.

To be honest, that had totally slipped my mind. I find it odd, though, that this weekend we had talked on at least a half dozen occasions and not once did you bring this up. Why is it an issue to bring up in public but not in private conversation?

So is the word of a man who says one thing and doesn't follow through as big a sin as some of the hate filled things you feel about Ann? Or is what you perceive in her to be so hateful not as bad as how I feel when someone lies to me about a commitment to keep their word?

Lies to you about a commitment? Okay. Since you want to air dirty laundry in public, let’s tell both sides of the story. Last year, when you felt I wasn’t promoting your new “business” enough, you sent me a nasty, hateful email. I was rather disturbed by the correspondence and thought that you might be just a bit unhinged. But I took full responsibility for the sleight you perceived and apologized fully (even though I wasn’t quite sure what I had done wrong).

I was cordial to you at the GodBlogCon. Also, this weekend I went out of my way to be friendly. I even let you use the computer in the media room numerous times to check your email. And in return…I get called a liar. Perhaps you want to reconsider your own actions before you ask me what I think about a “lack of grace we Christians tend to give each other.”

Eric Alright, so you want to purge her from the ranks of the religious conservatives. Not sure how you do that exactly but alright.

For starters, by not inviting her to speak at our events.

I suppose I should be glad that i'm not in the public eye as much as she is, or else you would want to purge me also from the ranks of the religious conservatives.

Well, yes I would. If you were running around the country spewing invective in the name of Christ, I’d want to disassociate from you too.

Let's be clear here, we aren't discussing her behavior, are we? We are discussing her words.

Speech is a form of behavior.

Writing that, or even thinking that about liberals (Have you read what Mummon writes on here?) means we should be purged from the ranks of the religious conservatives?

In my world, words still have meaning. Treason is punishable by death so calling someone a traitor is a very serious claim.

Grumpy Ann's over the top rhetorically. It's her shtick. If I thought she meant it, I'd agree with you.

I hear this often and can’t comprehend what it means. If she doesn’t mean it then why does she say it? If we aren’t supposed to take her seriously then she is just being puerile and stupid, so why give her any attention at all?

Rev. Mike …I doubt that Jim Wallis is particularly embarrassed about affirming them.

Could point. Wallis is a bit of an anomaly. I suspect that he and I agree on the what questions are important but we would disagree on the answers. Sometimes I think that Wallis is just too caught up in the 60s radical shtick to recognize that the solutions he champions have been proven failures. I’m still holding out hope that he will come around to our side. We could use a contrarian like him.

Dan For instance, I don't see how one could support the war (i.e., you aren't a pacifist) and oppose forms of coercion such as waterboarding.

There are worse things you can do to a man than killing him. There is a long history of “just warfare” but there is not corresponding “just torture” theory -- and for good reason. You raise an interesting point, though, and one that I’ve considered writing about before.

Raven If you even have to think about it, it's torture.

I’m not sure how you can claim that unless you believe that torture is relative to culture. I wouldn’t consider having women’s underwear put on my head to put “torture.” But some Muslims would. Should we have one standard or one for each person’s particular beliefs? And how would you decide without thinking about it?

By the way, here's an interesting quote from today's NYT about your Values Voter event:

You left off the reaction by my boss: “Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, who played host to the conference, said he was “upset” to learn of her instructions and condemned any deception.”

Eric I believe that Ann Coulter is probably a sexually active woman. I don't know if this is true but I suspect it might be. However, she isn't out there telling everyone to be sexually active outside of marriage.

"Let's say I go out every night, I meet a guy and have sex with him. Good for me. I'm not married."--- Coulter in an interview with Geraldo Rivera

Joe calls Andrew Sullivan a brother in Christ. So i'd like to see some consistency here.

Eric, your pulling a bait-and-switch here. I say that Andrew Sullivan is a “brother in Christ” and that Coulter should be purged from the ranks of religious conservatism. How is that inconsistent? If I had said Coulter were not a Christian, then you might have a point. If I had said Sullivan should be allowed to stay within the ranks of religious conservatism then you might have a point. But I said neither of those things.

In fact, I’m not sure what you are trying to say exactly?

If we're going to purge Ann Coulter from the group known as religious conservatives, who else are we going to purge?

How about Pat Buchanan? I could do without that race-baiting anti-semite.

Bene If the faithful are more afraid of Clinton then the devil, the faithful have a serious problem, don't they? That isn't even close to biblical.

I completely agree.

So what happens because you criticised this conference behavior Joe? Like Coulter they'll escalate, can't see your boss impressed with your blogging about this or leaving the room. I'd have resumes handy.

Oh, yes, Bene, FRC is completely intolerant of dissent.

Sheesh.

This isn’t Canada, my friend. Here in America we have a thing called the First Amendment. ; )

Childish name calling of the 'other' or the 'enemy' isn't even close to scriptural. But this really isn't about values and God is it?

You won’t have heard it because it wasn’t outrageous enough for the press, but Tony Perkins said that our enemies weren’t human but spiritual. Is that scriptural enough for ya?

Bible-believing is a term many who take the Bible literally use to describe themselves. It the same as fundamentalism, though that term seems to have fallen out of favor.

So you are saying that you are not a “Bible-believing” Christian?

The RR in Canada doesn't discrimate against parties, they concertedly go after anyone who doesn't follow what they want, LPC, CPC, BQ, NDP, Green, even CHP.

Sounds pretty much like the American version.

Perhaps you missed a few of these headlines:

"Family Research Council: GOP Vote Not Assured"
"'Disappointed' activists pushing values buttons"
"Evangelical voters more jaded in 2006"
"Key GOP voter bloc not singing party's praises"

27

Hi.

Joe, overall a great post. I'm a bit surprised at some of the criticisms of the post I've read, not just who they're coming from, but also the lack of charity that they imply about the criticizers.

In general, I think people who disagree need to think: "Does Joe really mean what I think he means? Is it plausible that I'm not understanding him correctly?" If it's unclear, then perhaps a request for clarification rather than a denunciation is in order. After all, the criticisms are public and your own reputation as a fair discourser is on the line.

Speaking of which, Stacy L. Harp, that personal grievance of yours against Joe should not have been aired publicly. I urge you to consider the appropriateness of your actions as a believer.

Joe, I was wondering if you've ever heard of Russell D. Moore's The Kingdom of Christ. I read a section of it yesterday for seminary class (Reformed Theological Seminary) and I think you might like it. And.... if you still haven't read my comments from Don't Marry a Proverbs 31 Woman, you should if you have time, though I guess you're probably sick of it by now =P

28

Perhaps you missed a few of these headlines:

"Family Research Council: GOP Vote Not Assured"
"'Disappointed' activists pushing values buttons"
"Evangelical voters more jaded in 2006"
"Key GOP voter bloc not singing party's praises"

Those same headlines come out every 4 years. I remember them at least as far back as the early 1990's. Evangelicals shake a finger in the GOP's face and say "if you don't listen to us, we'll leave the party and that will be the end for you!". Yes, it likely would be the end of the GOP's reign, but they never leave. No matter how badly the GOP disappoints Christians, panders to them, makes them promises they never intend to fulfill, and blatantly contradicts its own (supposedly) conservative values, evangelicals never leave. As far as I'm concerned, it's an unholy alliance. Sure, the Republican party is the lesser of two evils when compared with the Democrats (as far as Christians should be concerned) but the lesser of two evils is still evil. Is supporting evil what evangelicals are called to do?

29

In a classical statement of ecumenicity, St. Augustine once said, "In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, love." Those of us on the religious right should adopt a similar principle and clearly define the boundaries between what is essential and what is non-essential in matters of policy and politics. Protecting the sanctity of innocent human life and defending the traditional definition of marriage are clearly essentials.

The part about "defending marriage" will always sound a bit hollow unless the "religous right" comes clean and admits that the greatest threat to marriage is divorce, not gay and lesbian Americans getting hitched. -And allocates their resources accordingly. Otherwise their actions in this area simply stink (or appear to stink), of prejudice, not actual concern.

Thanks for the stand about torture Joe, your personal ethics are one reason why I've thought you a poor fit for FoF.

30

Joe: True, Perkins did indicate displeasure. But also true that there's an awful lot of strange and twisted rhetoric being generated at this event. How it is that government officials and Tony Snow are in attendance is a question I'm not sure I want answered.

"I wouldn’t consider having women’s underwear put on my head to put “torture.” But some Muslims would. Should we have one standard or one for each person’s particular beliefs? And how would you decide without thinking about it?"

This is a no-brainer, Joe. Look, let's say you've caught a prisoner. A member of al Qaeda, or the Taliban if you like. As the capturer, you are entitled to interrogate this individual, but you are not allowed (by treaty and convention) to employ methods that are "humiliating and degrading."

There are tried and true methods of interrogation and questioning that do not rely on force and coercion through pain and suffering. Some of the best (I've done extensive research on this, btw) are to put a spy in the prisoner's cell. Maybe he won't talk to you, but he'll yap up a storm to his new "pal."

You offer incentives for good intel. Maybe more time in the yard, better food, a phone call home, etc. Professional interrogators (real ones, not the thugs Bush is using) say over and over in the literature that a cigarette and a cup of coffee, timed properly, can be extremely effective.

See, you don't have to have separate lists of approved tortures for different populations if your goal at the outset is be legal and humane in your treatment of prisoners. I've offered only a few known techniques that work to secure reliable intel, but there are more, and all of them start with the basic premise that brutalizing and breaking the prisoner until he's babbling and confessing and signing anything you shove in front of him is wrong - and that's what torture is.

This is such a key, inherently American concept I cannot understand how you failed to acquire it. But it seems that, upon reflection, you've accepted the reality that a nation that tortures is a nation that cannot operate with moral authority. And I'm gladened by that.

31

While we're on the subject of torture, it's been established policy for quite some time that waterboarding is indeed torture:

Is waterboarding torture, or is it merely a stressful psychological technique?

Interestingly, the United States has long since answered that question. Following the end of the Second World War we prosecuted a number of Japanese military and civilian officials for war crimes. including the torture of captured Allied personnel. At one of those trials, United States v. Sawada, here’s how Captain Chase Nielsen, a crew member in the 1942 Doolittle Raid on Japan, described his treatment, when he was captured, (and later tried for alleged war crimes by a Japanese military commission):

Q: What other physical treatment was administered to you at that time?

A: Well, I was given what they call the water cure.

Q: Explain to the Commission what that was.

A: Well, I was put on my back on the floor with my arms and legs stretched out, one guard holding each limb. The towel was wrapped around my face and put across my face and water was poured on. They poured water on this towel until I was almost unconscious from strangulation, then they would let me up until I'd get my breath, then they'd start over again.

Q: When you regained consciousness would they keep asking you questions?

A: Yes sir they did.

Q: How long did this treatment continue?

A: About twenty minutes.

Q: What was your sensation when they were pouring water on the towel, what did you physically feel?

A: Well, I felt more or less like I was drowning, just gasping between life and death.

The prosecutor in that case was vehement in arguing that the captured Doolittle fliers had been wrongfully convicted by the Japanese tribunal, in part because they were convicted based on evidence obtained through torture. "The untrustworthiness of any admissions or confessions made under torture," he said, "would clearly vitiate a conviction based thereon."

At the end of the Tokyo War Crimes Trial, the International Military Tribunal for the Far East of which the United States was a leading member (the Tribunal was established by Douglas MacArthur) convicted former Japanese Prime Minister Tojo and numerous other generals and admirals of a panoply of war crimes. Among them was torture:

The practice of torturing prisoners of war and civilian internees prevailed at practically all places occupied by Japanese troops, both in the occupied territories and in Japan. The Japanese indulged in this practice during the entire period of the Pacific War. Methods of torture were employed in all areas so uniformly as to indicate policy both in training and execution. Among these tortures were the water treatment...

The so-called "water treatment" was commonly applied. The victim was bound or otherwise secured in a prone position; and water was forced through his mouth and nostrils into his lungs and stomach until he lost consciousness. Pressure was then applied, sometimes by jumping upon his abdomen to force the water out. The usual practice was to revive the victim and successively repeat the process.

(HT: jillian@Kos)

32

Chris Dan; If you can't understand how one can support war and not torture(even waterboarding), then you simply do not understand the warrior ethos. Providing compassion and dignity for our captured foes allows America to stand on the moral high ground when we oppose the torture of our own troops. It is, also, a long standing U.S. military priciple. When we fail to do so, we copromise our servicemen and women and expose them worse treatment then we can even think to do to our pow's. Physical coersion is one of the least effective methods of information gathering anyway. We don't need to redefine torture, its plain enough, we need to define the enemy and seek them out more effectively.

Since the establishment of the GC, none of our enemies have abided by its regulations on the treatment of prisoners so from a pragmatic perspective, I don't think standing on the moral high ground has bought us much there. The argument that physical coercion is ineffective in obtaining reliable intelligence seems to be popular because few are willing to oppose it. The few people I've known (not Americans) that have been on the delivering end of such practices are quite convinced of its effectiveness.

Joe There are worse things you can do to a man than killing him. There is a long history of “just warfare” but there is not corresponding “just torture” theory -- and for good reason. You raise an interesting point, though, and one that I’ve considered writing about before.

I'm not sure if it is what you meant, but I think the possible effects on the "torturer" are a more compelling argument against the use of physical coercion than the possible effects on the "torturee."

As for the absence of a "just torture" theory, there are no theories on the particular tactics of war. Part of Augustine's motivation in writing City of God was to counter the false argument that because the Christian's ultimate destiny is heaven, he has no responsibilities to earthly institutions. As we all know, Augustine went so far as to prescribe, based on his biblical understanding, the circumstances under which the Christian should take up arms, a conclusion that continues to surprise Christians today. While I would not draw strict parallels with Augustine's situation, I would like to see a more careful treatment of this subject.

33

I've been too preoccupied reading Coulter's latest, "Godless" to follow the ongoing debate on her ethics. Personally, I think that everyone takes her too seriously. She makes a poor theologian, and a borderline political analyst, but this lawyer turned political satirest is a brilliant writer, as are many of the left wing writers that I enjoy, including Garrison Keiler.

As someone pointed out, there is scarcely a regular commenter here, besides perhaps myself, who hasn't made some pretty outrageous statements at one time or another. There are more than a few on the thread alone coming from both sides of the polical divide.

Ann thinks that subdueing the earth means standing room only;
that wasting energy is our God-given right, and that the recent medical malpractice lawsuits involving breast implants are a left wing conspiracy. Silly stuff la dat. But she is right on target on a number of other issues and if you chew the meat and spit out the bones, you might learn something about the art of political satire, and have a chuckle at the same time.

This from today's NY Post. . .

September 25, 2006 -- THERE'S a good reason why the four authors of the upcoming book "I Hate Ann Coulter!" are remaining anonymous - they're afraid for their safety. "None of us want our real names in the hands of gun-toting, abortion clinic-bombing, self-proclaimed 'wing nuts,' who follow Coulter," one of the scribes tells us. Coulter , who called 9/11 widows publicity-loving "harpies," is shown with a devil's tail and horns on the book's cover. It's only the second time in Simon & Schuster's history that an author's identity has been kept secret, the first being, "Go Ask Alice," a teen drug addict's diary, published in 1971

34

Joe:

A very strong post, today, Joe. I'm glad to see you back in fine writing mode after your transition to Washington, D.C.

All the comments so far pro and con are just evidence that you had interesting things to say.

Here's three points:

We have ideological enemies (e.g., Islamo-fascists) and ideological opponents (e.g., secular liberals). Our ideological opponents want us to lose elections; our ideological enemies want us to lose our lives. While we have to love them all, we shouldn’t lump them all together.

Well said. Though as your ideological "opponent" (inasmuch as I am an atheist-materialist-naturalist), I don't want you to lose elections.

The Republicans seem to have a lot more on offer nowadays than the Democrats. In particular, I am a huge fan of George Bush and his stewardship of our country and our foreign policy. And I'm pretty sure he counts as being a member of the religious right, although he's not particularly conservative about a lot of issues.

Our beliefs are often informed by tradition and sacred texts. This does not, as our ideological opponents often claim, make them invalid.

Good point.

However, your ideological opponents' (the secularists) beliefs are also often informed by tradition and sacred texts. They too spring from the same historical tradition and culture, which used to be principally European and Christian.

They are just open, due to their skepticism, to other sources for their beliefs besides tradition and religious texts.

In the 1950’s, William F. Buckley, Jr. and National Review led the move to anathemize the John Birch Society from the ranks of respectable conservatism. Today, we religious conservatives need to follow that precedent by purging the most odious hangers-on from our company. I propose that we start with the obnoxious, hate-spewing Ann Coulter.

Ann Coulter is not equivalent to the people who populated the John Birch Society in the 1950's. Her beliefs are not irrational and close-minded and prejudiced in the way that the Birchers' were. If you read Ms. Coulter superficially, you might get that impression, but she is not in the same category.

Ann Coulter says things that are hurtful and unjustified. To you, that is un-Christian, and you feel the need to purge her. Fair enough, I can see where you're coming from.

I don't agree with you, though. I don't think it's fair to hold a professional pundit and partisan fighter like Ms. Coulter to the same standards of Christ-liness as you would just anyone else. That's a bit like saying a Marine should repent his killing ways because Christ would never be "semper fi" to Caesar and serve in his legions.

Ms. Coulter has chosen an un-Christ-like profession, and is good at it. If she goes over the line, we should call her on it, but in general her writing is very good and appropriate. It's unreasonable to expect that you or I will agree with every turn of phrase, every political position, or just how far she should go to get her point across.

As usual though, I respect your disagreement.

35

"Since the establishment of the GC, none of our enemies have abided by its regulations on the treatment of prisoners so from a pragmatic perspective, I don't think standing on the moral high ground has bought us much there."

The behavior of our enemies should have no bearing on our own conduct as a civilized people. If we fight cannibals, must we become cannibals? If we fight torturers, must we become torturers? America leads by example to the rest of the world.

As for what several generations of respect for the "decent opinion of mankind" has bought us, consider that (until now, anyway) we have been able to pressure torturing regimes to release prisoners, to ameliorate the suffering of many through such NGOs as Amnesty International. In the latter case, it is the shame of being hauled out as an international pariah that causes many of the less-civilized governments in the world to keep their outrages upon humanity secret, at a lower level than they would otherwise be. That's the kind of thing we bought with our adherence to high standards in the treatment of prisoners.

More: Until now, anyway, being an American gave you a kind of "get out of jail free" card with respect to foreign detentions. Not uniformly, but in many cases Americans have been treated more favorably than others because, I would argue, of our legendary respect and championing of human rights. Yes, our military and economic clout have played a part in that, but our moral authority has had positive effects that cannot be fully grasped in a statement of POW quid pro quo.

By hurtling our country down a dark well of sadism, with black-site prisons, secret detainments, renditions, brutal torture, illegal surveillance and the like, we're effectively re-creating the KGB and the Stasi. If you are too young to remember the Cold War, I can tell you that those organizations tarred their governments as being the scum of the earth, ethically speaking, and justified almost any conceivable opposition to them.

There's an op-ed in today's NYT by a WWII vet who was in charge of mounting loudspeakers on tanks and such, so that our forces could broadcast in German the words, "If you surrender you will be treated in accord with the Geneva Conventions" and the author's unit was credited in taking over 5,000 captives who laid down their arms in the belief that we meant what we were saying.

When you get the reputation of being a regime of sadistic torturers who will jail you forever or execute you without trial, people will be far more inclined to fight you to the death. Adherence to Geneva, then, arguably has saved many American lives because our enemies have been more disposed to surrender to us. These are some of the reasons the Pentagon is not in favor of scrapping the Conventions. They buy (bought) us quite a bit.

36

Yes, Joe, we know, Ann Coulter is a naughty girl and we shouldn't encourage her. But, in defense of those of us who secretly admire the way she skewers those on the left with rapier wit, do you remember how she came to the public eye? It was the Lewinsky scandal and her book High Crimes and Misdemeanors. None of us had ever really seen any attractive conservative woman lancing the boil that is liberalism in quite the way Coulter did. She was quick. She was a woman who didn't fall down for Clinton (Nina Burleigh? look it up). She was a breath of fresh air for media-starved conservatives.

Nuff said.

I guess you're right. Of course, you're right, you're a Calvinist and a Presbyterian (so am I). But I wish you weren't right.

37

Speaking of ourageous statements, today at 7:30 a.m. I covered
a boating protest at the Hanalei River for KITV. While interviewing ultra-liberal State Rep, Mina Morita, an ambulance drove by. The politician, unaware that the mike was still on said, "Let's hope that ------- had a heart attack."

Should she be purged from the ranks of the the left? The people around her didn't think so. They laughed. I laughed too as I told her that it was caught on tape. She has nothing to worry about though. She runs unopposed because in the bastion of liberal thought no one cares if she makes an Ann Coulter like comment, just as long as it is directed at the the right people.

38

Hi Joe,
I am feeling a beet contrarian today. So I wanted to raise a few issues
"Being Right doesn’t mean we are always right. I know we claim we understand that but it would probably help if we acted like we believed it as well."
How does this relate to your post on you being certain?

"As a matter of political liberty I believe it is important that we support such issues as prayer in schools and public displays of religious symbols. But I can’t imagine that on the Day of Judgment I’ll hear, “Well done, good and faithful servant…you have faithfully fought to keep the Ten Commandments in the courthouse.” More likely we’ll all be asked why we didn’t spend more time concerned about our neighbors in Darfur or fighting the pandemic of AIDS. Perhaps we should rethink our priorities and put the first things first."
Hmmm. I'm not completely sure I can agree with this. It sounds nice, but considering the possible flow on effects, it would do us no good to fight the AIDS pandemic for the next 2 decades only to lose America to socialists and communists, resulting in massive starvation and state murder. I guess I am saying it is important to consider the big picture, not just the obvious immediate needs. As such, I'm not sure I can decide what God is going to say....

And finally, the statement that I find most troubling is this one "We have ideological enemies (e.g., Islamo-fascists) and ideological opponents (e.g., secular liberals). Our ideological opponents want us to lose elections; our ideological enemies want us to lose our lives. While we have to love them all, we shouldn’t lump them all together."
Tell that to the proletariat in Russia, China, Cambodia, Laos etc etc etc. Secular liberals thinking can only go one way, and that is too a place where Christian's are persecuted and murdered if they don't shut up.
Pretending they are only 'opponents' and not 'enemies' I think is unhelpful. And unbiblical. That being said, I think it is important to understand the different methods being used in the fights, and so it is important to distinguish between them on that level. I guess I don't necessarily disagree with you, just your statement is too imprecise to be more useful than dangerous.

39

I can’t make excuses for us on this one anymore: We have to take a firm stand against torture. Yes, there is a debate about what exactly is meant by that term. So let’s define it in a way that consistent with our belief in human dignity. And then let’s hold every politician in the country to that standard. Our silence is embarrassing.

Dan

I agree with much of what you say, especially the bit about "It is not enough to simply baptize the conservative agenda; our political beliefs must be derived from our Biblical worldview," but I'm not sure where you're going with the statement above on torture. For instance, I don't see how one could support the war (i.e., you aren't a pacifist) and oppose forms of coercion such as waterboarding. In supporting the war, you are supporting the brutal and violent (and necessary) killing of enemy fighters. Something such as waterboarding which causes physical discomfort but no injury can yield intelligence that can save lives on both sides by shortening the conflict. Opposing such methods on the grounds of "human dignity" seems to be a rather selective application of that ideal.

I enthusiastically agreed with the majority of your post Joe.

I tend to be against torture (for any reason), however I dont think the issue is slam dunk. Several issues need to be addressed. I dont think torture can be clearly defined. Some acts are clearly torture, but where is the line between torture and inconvenience? I hate situation ethics... But: If you have an atomic bomb in Washington DC and a terrorist in custody, why wouldnt you torture one person who is clearly evil to save the lives of thousands (Could nuclear fallout poisoning be considered torture?) and perhaps the country? This is not as hypothetical a question as it was before 9-11. I think we frequently confuse personal ethical standards as relevant to state ethical standards. The death penalty would be a good example of why this is misguided.

In the 1950’s, William F. Buckley, Jr. and National Review led the move to anathemize the John Birch Society from the ranks of respectable conservatism. Today, we religious conservatives need to follow that precedent by purging the most odious hangers-on from our company. I propose that we start with the obnoxious, hate-spewing Ann Coulter.

I think it is surreal when you spew your hateful bile against Ann.

Here is a link I found on World Magazine Blog a while ago:
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/196/story_19646_1.html

40

"“Sir, my concern is not whether God is on our side,” said the President, “my greatest concern is to be on God's side, for God is always right.”"

The difference between evangelicals like some posting on this site, and Lincoln, is the difference between having the audacity to assert whether they know for certain that G-d is on their side, ever, about any single issue. Lincoln's concern was complete, that is, Lincoln always held doubt he was part of the Almighty's purposes. The attitudes in this post do not carry the same humility.

"Being Right doesn’t mean we are _always_ right. I know we _claim_ we understand..." [FYP]

Nobody knows G-d's side. One religious studies professor I studied from asserted that G-d may have intended for the Roman Empire, despite its aggressive persecution of Christians (for a time), so that the infrastructure would be available for spreading the Word of G-d. Not that my professor was certain in his theory, just that it is obligatory for us to assume that G-d's purposes are entirely hidden from us.

That is, of course, unless G-d himself has appeared to you in person and given you the detailed gameplan.

41

As such, I'm not sure I can decide what God is going to say....

If you people would collectively co-sign on this statement, I'd be outta here. The thing that amazes and confounds me is that you believe there is some kind of superpowerful and super-intelligent deity that transcends time and space, and that you receive and interpret its desires. You claim to know the will of God, its every idea, intention, whim, bias, inclination - you claim to know the will of God so perfectly as to form specific policies and statements of the Deity's desires.

How the hell do you claim to know that? And here we have Joe's Values Voters conference, with such intellectual heavyweights as Coulter and Dobson showing up to speak like the oracle of Delphi and vocalize the word of the Deity.

How dare you! How dare you claim to speak the voice of the creator and avow you understand its intention! That level of hubris is beyond insanity, it degrades the very notion of what it means to be a human being. Joe, you talk about secular humanists "opposing" you and you're just plain wrong. You want to go to church and listen to sermons, knock yourself out. I don't oppose you until you try to write law that accords with your unfounded claim of speaking for the Deity. I claim you don't know squat about what the Deity wants since you can't prove there is any such thing.

On those grounds, I'll fight you to the ground. But if you want to gather with like minds and discuss your beliefs, go for it. I support that one-hundred percent.

42

OK, Joe, I will agree with you that it is time for Christians to take a stand against torture. However, as you point out there are things to be discussed here. Let's first try to dispense with some of the silly arguments that are put forth and then start the discussion with some definitions.

I propose two arguments can be safely dispensed with at this point:

1) "Everyone knows implicitly what torture is." If that were true there would be no argument to be had. This is really the core issue. Are sleep deprivation, humiliation, playing unpleasant music, or violating someone else's taboos examples of torture or legitimate interrogation techniques? What about water boarding? What limits ought to be placed on any of these or other techniques? Your thoughts on this would be helpful. I think the majority of people in this country do not have backgrounds of military service and so do not feel equipped to draw the line with pinpoint accuracy between legitimate interrogation techniques and torture.

2) "Anyway, torture is not an effective way to gather intelligence." This one gets trotted out often, and doesn't get any more traction for its frequency of use. Obviously there must be some intelligence gathering utility in the use of torture or we wouldn't be having this discussion. And besides, utilitarian arguments like this have nothing to do with the "ought" arguments we as Christians should be having.

If the discussion is had in a public forum like this there will undoubtedly be much input from the usual crowd who are not Christians. While what they say may be interesting, and may in some points even align fairly closely with what some or all Christians here may believe, these comments will, of course, not advance a Christian understanding of the issue. And if it turns out that Mummon and Raven have some good points that will prove the old adage that even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

43

Cheesehead:

Obviously there must be some intelligence gathering utility in the use of torture or we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Prove it.

There's reams of evidence going back hundreds of years that says otherwise.

Occam's razor comes to mind here: given that it is known that the "intelligence" gained through torture has little value because the captive's goal is simply to get the torture to stop, the simplest explanation is that those who practice it are simply evil. Period.

And you're an apologist for evil-doers.

44

Dear Stacy L. Harp,

I'm somewhat relieved to hear I am not the only one. I've been waiting for Joe to review my books, but only for 4-12 months.... -:)

Blessings,
Alex

45

Oh, yes, Bene, FRC is completely intolerant of dissent.

Let's hope you are incorrect about that.

This isn’t Canada, my friend. Here in America we have a thing called the First Amendment. ; )

You do. And a Constitution which is one of the finest political documents in history.

You won’t have heard it because it wasn’t outrageous enough for the press, but Tony Perkins said that our enemies weren’t human but spiritual. Is that scriptural enough for ya?

You are correct, there is a lot I haven't read, but I've made an attempt to try. Given some of the hyperbole thrown around this latest theatre, I agree it is noteworthy when someone says something reasonable.

So you are saying that you are not a “Bible-believing” Christian?

Sigh.

Sounds pretty much like the American version.

Yep.

Perhaps you missed a few of these headlines:

I did. Thank you.

46

The thing that amazes and confounds me is that you believe there is some kind of superpowerful and super-intelligent deity that transcends time and space, and that you receive and interpret its desires. You claim to know the will of God, its every idea, intention, whim, bias, inclination - you claim to know the will of God so perfectly as to form specific policies and statements of the Deity's desires.

How the hell do you claim to know that?

There's this book called "The Bible". Ever heard of it?

“All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.”
(2Tim 3:16-17 NAS95S)

47

I definitely see Joe's point about Ann Coulter. I bought her book "Treason" because it seemed like it contained a lot of good information, and it does. However, I simply could not finish it because of her snarky comments in nearly every paragraph even though they weren't aimed at me.

The entire point of stating something that's true is to convince the listener of that truth. But if you state the truth in a way that insults the listener, then all you've accomplished is to make that person hate both you and the truth you're trying to tell them. In other words, rather than actually changing minds, Ann is hardening their minds against change; basically inoculating them against the truth.

In short, she is violating these critical verses:

“Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.”
(1Pet 3:15-16 NIV)

“Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord. On the contrary: “If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.”
(Rom 12:17-21 NIV)

48

Joe,

You're really throwing me off with your terms. You wrote;

Well, yes I would. If you were running around the country spewing invective in the name of Christ, I’d want to disassociate from you too.

Do religious conservatives speak in the name of Christ? Does Ann Coulter claim to speak in the name of Christ? What of Michael Medved and Dennis Prager, do they speak in the name of Christ or should we purge them from the ranks of the religious conservatives?

Maybe you should define what it is you mean when you say you want to purge someone from the ranks of religious conservatives. Truely, I dunno what you are trying to say here.

You wrote;

For starters, by not inviting her to speak at our events.

When you say our what does that mean? If you mean Christian events then yes, I would agree with you that Ann Coulter has no place speaking at Christian events. If you mean political events, then no I do not agree with you that Ann Coulter should be purged from political events. If you mean political Christian events, well, I don't think we should be having those, so that's another issue completely.

I wrote;

I believe that Ann Coulter is probably a sexually active woman. I don't know if this is true but I suspect it might be. However, she isn't out there telling everyone to be sexually active outside of marriage.

And Joe responded with

"Let's say I go out every night, I meet a guy and have sex with him. Good for me. I'm not married."--- Coulter in an interview with Geraldo Rivera.

And then you didn't comment further. What's that quote supposed to mean? Unless you're just trying to help me establish my belief, that she is sexually active outside of marriage.

Joe wrote;

Eric, your pulling a bait-and-switch here. I say that Andrew Sullivan is a “brother in Christ” and that Coulter should be purged from the ranks of religious conservatism. How is that inconsistent? If I had said Coulter were not a Christian, then you might have a point. If I had said Sullivan should be allowed to stay within the ranks of religious conservatism then you might have a point. But I said neither of those things.

Well, i'm not trying to pull a bait and switch here. You asked me

In fact, I’m not sure what you are trying to say exactly?

Hmmm, perhaps we are talking past each other?

Let's see if I can make it clear. Neither Ann Coulter nor Andrew Sullivan should be allowed to preach to the faithful at Christian events. Both should be allowed to speak at political events. I guess my point is my position is consistent and yours does not appear to be.

How about Pat Buchanan? I could do without that race-baiting anti-semite.

Aren't we a little late for that? He purged himself and joined up with the Libertarians, remember? Or was it that party started by Ross Perot? I forget, but i'm pretty sure he already purged himself.

I guess this all comes down to what it is exactly that you want to purge her from. Perhaps you can be a little more specific and include for me if you think Andrew Sullivan ought to be purged from that place/event also, or if we should allow him while purging her.

49

To be fair I haven't read through all the comments, so I'm simply responding to Joe, because it's his blog.

My point in bringing up you failing to keep your word, even after you telling me last year at GBC that you would fulfill your commitment, is just to point out that you not keeping your word is just as sinful as the things you don't like about Ann.

And yes, you were very gracious to me at the event this weekend, but that's not what this is about. What this is about is you not liking the "style" of Ann Coulter and me simply saying that I do not like your "style" concerning what you say.

And contrary to your comments about me being mad that you failed to promote my company, that's not the issue with me - and I've done fine without your promotion.

What this is about is you failing to keep your word, when you say one thing and then fail to follow through.

Explain to me how it is that Ann is radically criticized for what she says because you don't like her style, but it's wrong for me to criticize you back for not liking your style.

Technically, and this is simply a point and not a dig. Technically, you stole from me and the publisher that gave me the book you agreed to review. Because you agreed to do a review in exchange for a book...okay.

So technically that's theft and lying. Technically.

Am I saying that you're a thief and liar - no....what I'm saying is that sometimes when we can't offer grace to a fellow saint, such as Ann Coulter - like it or not she is a saint and she is on our side - simply because of style. It just makes me wonder why it's okay with you to not keep your word, or why it bothers you so that I have not forgotten that you didn't keep your word because you forgot or whatever reason.

In other words, why attack our side when there is plenty to attack on the other side.

To me that's ridiculous, and my example may be also - to you...however, my point is that if it bothers you that I haven't forgotten you failing to keep your word to me, how much more so is it important for you to examine yourself before you go an attack someone on our side.

And I'd have to say that your opinion of Ann is obviously in the minority because her book signing was the biggest at the event, so it was good that FRC didn't listen to you.

I honestly have no hard feelings towards you, and I hope you don't have them toward me. However, unlike many others, I don't put a lot of weight in what you say concerning commitments because of my experience. When someone gives me their word, I expect them to keep their word. When someone apologizes and says they will follow through, and for whatever reason they don't, well...you get the picture.

50

Obviously there must be some intelligence gathering utility in the use of torture or we wouldn't be having this discussion. -- Cheesehead

That's not what Lt. Gen. John Kimmons, Army deputy chief of staff for intelligence, says.

"No good intelligence is going to come from abusive practices," Kimmons said. "I think history tells us that. I think the empirical evidence of the past five years, hard years, tells us that." He argued that "any piece of intelligence which is obtained under duress through the use of abusive techniques would be of questionable credibility." And Kimmons conceded that bad P.R. about abuse could work against the United States in the war on terror. "It would do more harm than good when it inevitably became known that abusive practices were used," Kimmons said. "We can't afford to go there."

Kimmons added that "our most significant successes on the battlefield -- in fact, I would say all of them, almost categorically, all of them" -- came from interrogators that stuck to the kinds of humane techniques framed in the new Army manual. "We don't need abusive practices in there," Kimmons said. "Nothing good will come from them."

51

Stacy,

I respectfully suggest that your complaining to Joe in a public forum about his alleged failure to keep his word is uncharitable.

You defend your criticism by stating that you are just making a point about Joe and Ann Coulter. It doesn't come across that way. It comes across, even after your latest comment, that you are trying to embarrass Joe in retaliation for his alleged transgression.

And if you are trying to embarrass Joe then you should consider giving Joe an apology. I wouldn't want someone going to my blog to make a comment that could reflect badly on me. What if someone who was disappointed in you, rightly or wrongly, made an accusation on your blog -- I think you would prefer that person to take up the matter with you in a more discreet manner.

Thank you for considering my feedback,

Matthew

52

Stacy,

“If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother.”
(Matt 18:15 NAS95S)

Joe has already admitted his guilt and apologized, apparently before you even started your very public campaign against him here. Why are you continuing to attack him even though he has basically done the same here?

I agree with Joe that there are major problems with Ann's approach. I posted my reasons just two comments prior to your latest post. Please compare Ann's actions to the verses I quoted. Do you honestly think Ann's actions obey those verses? Or they violate those verses?

53

Joe,

I am *so* glad you are not a leader of the religious right -- and not likely to be -- because it would then be a more powerful political force. Those of us on liberal left and moderate center would, if your comments had force, be compelled to take the religious right more seriously. However, as long as Ann Coulter has fans like those commenting above, as long as you have members of your group saying they like to nuke North Korea as did whoever is that goes by Eric&Lisa, and as long as your party advocates torture, the rest of us can sleep easy knowning the religious right has reached it limits.

For the time being, you are probably better served trying to reign in your own extremists rather than going after the moderates or combatting the leftwingers.

54

Wilson: I did not say that there is limitless intelligence gathering utility in using torture. Nor did I say that any utility that might inhere in the use of torture is beyond dispute. Nor did I say that the value of information gained in this way exceeds in value the downsides of using torture.

What I DID say is that the whole utility question regarding torture is a meaningless and unwelcome sideshow when attempting to come to a Christian view of what constitutes torture as opposed to legitimate interrogation techniques. Reread the sentence that immediately followed the one you are responding to: "And besides, utilitarian arguments like this have nothing to do with the "ought" arguments we as Christians should be having."

What I am saying is to trot out the "torture doesn't work" argument turns what ought to be a moral argument into a pragmatic argument. I am not an expert in effectual or ineffectual interrogation techniques. I do not believe that it matters whether torture is an efficient means of intelligence gathering or not. What matters is where is the line between legitimate interrogation techniques and torture. This is not a "what works" argument. It is a "what ought to be" argument.

55

*breathes deeply*

I love the smell of reverse psychology in the morning.

56

Cheesehead:

I do not believe that it matters whether torture is an efficient means of intelligence gathering or not. What matters is where is the line between legitimate interrogation techniques and torture. This is not a "what works" argument. It is a "what ought to be" argument.

What matters, IMO, given that we are in a war, is that we bring it to a conclusion that is most ethical with minimum loss of life, and harm, at least in the near term.

Now it just so happens, based on experiences of folks that go back to at least Napoleon, that torture is ineffective; and hence, in the sense of what matters, torture is useless, since it does not foster behavior that results in minimum loss of life, and harm, at least in the near term.

It turns out that "what works" - at least in this case- is "what ought to be."

Talk to the Marine interrogators association. Let them tell you what works. And from what I've read from them, "line between legitimate interrogation techniques and torture," is pretty bright.

57

Mummon: "Talk to the Marine interrogators association. Let them tell you what works."

If such an "association" exists I would imagine that they have a lot more important things to do with their time than talk to me about what works in interrogation.

"And from what I've read from them, "line between legitimate interrogation techniques and torture," is pretty bright."

Great, then we have this discussion settled. The line between legitimate interrogation techniques and torture is pretty bright. No one in the United States advocates the use of torture. There has been a lot of heated rhetoric coming from people who misunderstood that the issues are clear, simple, and easy to understand, and that we are all on the same side of this thing. Next topic.

Meanwhile, Joe, the part of your statement on torture that is most salient due to being the least acted upon is: "So let’s define it in a way that consistent with our belief in human dignity."

Speaking for myself and maybe a few other Christians who frequent this site, when will you enter this discussion?

58

Ed "What the" Heckman:

Each of your points have been right on. Great stuff.

59

Well, here is a lovely little quote from the "values summit".

...also echoed by a close Dobson ally, Rev. Wellington Boone, who exclaimed to hosannas from the assembled, "Back in the days when I was a kid, and we see guys that don't stand strong on principle, we call them "faggots."

I'd say Ann Coulter is the least of your problems Joe.

60

Splendid work! Thanks.

61

"That we need to be so horrific when we decide to go to war (Which should be seldom if at all) that people fear us and our abilities to destroy them. "

Hmmm, straight from the mouth of Jesus?!

"Christianity" is heading in a very disturbing direction as it's message is corrupted by secular events. It's unfortunate there are not more leaders speaking along the lines of what Jesus might have said, rather than what furthers their own national interests.

When "Christians" are debating amongst themselves what constitutes "fair torture methods" I think I'm safe in assuming that they've strayed a bit from the intent of their savior.

62

Ahimsa,

Jesus brought us peace between Himself and mankind, he didn't come to establish a kingdom on Earth.

63

ahimsa:
Hmmm, straight from the mouth of Jesus?!

E&L's whole quote is
I believe that waging a "soft" war ends up costing more blood and treasure than a nasty war. That we need to be so horrific when we decide to go to war (Which should be seldom if at all) that people fear us and our abilities to destroy them.

While I may not have worded it the way E&L did, I believe two points are being made. First, war should only be used as a last resort. Secondly, when we go to war, we need to fight to win. Which is preferable, a never-ending series of small wars/conflicts which never resolve the issue(s) or a single large conflict which results in a lasting peace? I agree with E&L that the latter in general is more preferable.

Most people get confused with the concept of proportionality. Proportionality does not mean, as many people use the term, that one can only respond in an absolutely equal manner to the other party. It means that the defending party has the right to use whatever force is necessary to end the aggression of the other party. Therefore, I believe that by "horrorific", E&L mean to use the necessary force to resolve the conflict and not to nuke a city because someone shoots one of our diplomats.

A personal example of this would be if someone entered your home with a knife to attack you. Now, because the person has a knife, that does not mean you can only use a knife to defend yourself even though you have a gun. It is perfectly proper for you to use the gun if the intruder continues to attack. However, if the intruder runs when you brandish your weapon, it would be disproportionate to shoot the intruder (unless this was a multiple instance of the intruder attempting to attack you).

The state has a duty to maintain order and to protect it's citizens from harm. So, while the state should act in a Christian manner whenever possible, it does have the right to act in ways that an individual Christian is not.

64

Just so, Chris. Well said.

65

Eric & Lisa:

Thy Kingdom Come: Thy will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven.

66

Indeed, his