Response to Ann Coulter's Boo Boo:
I am writing this in response to your article. I've read Ann Coulter's book, and I must say that yes, it is gritty, but she makes many very valid points, and ones that for the most part I agree with. She never said that God was a Republican. Your article had the flavor of being offended by her assertions. You must be voting as a Democrat? Or you are steeped in the public school system. The points she makes in her book make it quite clear that the platform that the Democrats support are very anti-God. I can not in good conscience ever vote to support any Democrat that lines him or herself with the pro-death, anti-Christian bias's they espouse. If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, flies like a duck, swims like a duck, and has all the behaviors of a duck, Guess what It's a duck. If Democrats want to be seen as the great benevolent group of people that theythink they are, they had better start looking at the precepts of the Bible and understanding that they are not in line with it...... AT ALL.
Sincerely - Babette Stevens
Appreciate your newsletter...it's so unpredictable. Your writers call 'em the way they see 'em, and it's refreshing! I don't agree with everything, but I'm challenged to see things a different way. The problem with so many other journals and publications is that the source already dictates what you're going to read. You seem to be willing to print material from many perspectives. Keep it up.
Oh, and I'm patiently waiting for the conclusion of the Creation series. Hopefully soon ??
- Darryl Klassen
Editor's note: Thanks for the suggestion! We'll run Genesis Project 5th Day next week.
Though your definition of CLASSICAL LIBERALISM may be accurate, what Ann defines in her book is MUCH closer to liberalism in America today. I agree there are Christians within the Democratic Party, but very few, if any, would buy into the liberalism that PREACHES free choice for killing the unborn AFTER the free choice of sex. Serial killers have the same FREE CHOICE to kill. But if caught, they must suffer CONSEQUENCES and take responsibility for their FREE CHOICE. Liberalism is much closer to a religion than an ideology or political position. If it was just one idea among many, why do LIBERALS fight so hard if someone doesn’t PREACH their message in public schools or hold to their BELIEFS (very much a religious term)? If they thought their ideal was best, they would want it taught side by side with other beliefs. But instead, the PREACH a DOGMATIC message and at whatever cost seek to suppress differing views. Ann may have used the SHOCK FACTOR to get people’s attention, but sometimes that is what it takes to get subjects such as this brought into the light. - E. H.
I have heard others express the opinion that there are genuine believers who are also liberal or democrat. I'm just wondering how those "genuine believers", who presumably believe the same word of God that I do, justify their support (by default) of homosexual "marriage", abortion, and the relentless attack on the moral fiber of this nation? Perhaps historic liberalism had it's place in the liberation of those in bondage, but one is forced to question if today's version is the same. If not, then is your evaluation of "Godless" appropriate?
Thanks for educating us on your academic definition of liberalism. You go ahead and hold onto that. The rest of America knows what we mean- and Ann Coulter is right. You stated that many liberals are devout Christians! Give me a break. The last thing America needs is a supposedly Christian publication defending liberalism in America. If you can't do better than this, get off my computer. - B. R.
So you're saying that the hateful, malicious things Ms Coulter said about those widows was correct? I'm putting your web site on my "blocked senders" list.
Coulter for president!
- R. B.
I am a RIGHT winger and would appreciate you taking me off of the email list. thanks.
- T. F.
In "Ann Coulter's Boo Boo" you state:
"Classical liberalism holds that an individual's liberty is the primary political value. This liberty must be protected from the tendency of power to accumulate around heads of state, hereditary status, and established religion.Liberalism's patron saint is William of Ockham. A 13th century Franciscan monk and Oxford academic, Ockham based his notions of natural and inalienable rights on the perfect liberty of the gospels. He believed that institutional authority must be limited to in order to protect these rights."
Ockham's liberalism was the "liberation" of the common man from the tyranny of the superior elite.
However, contemporary American political "liberalism" is, and yields, the opposite of "classical European liberalism stated above.
The contemporary American liberal wants the State to do everything for the individual, to free him so he can enjoy his rights - his entitlements.
On the other hand, American conservatism wants the State to do only what is necessary for the State to do so that the individual enjoys his freedom - including freedom from the State.
We must realize each law - each dictation of the State - requires the relinquishing of an element of individual sovereignty. Each specific relinquishing may not seem important. However, we forget, the integration of all of the elements of sovereignty that has been relinquished, now adds up to a big chunk of individual sovereignty - individual freedom.
In my humble opinion, if Ockham was an American today and still retained his 13th century values, he would be, whether a Republican or Democrat, a conservative.
With respect to the religious aspects of politics, or "Secularism", or whatever we call it, the issue of separating Church and State as expressed by our Founding Fathers is - simply - The Church shall not control the State, nor shall the State control the Church. This separation was a departure from Church and State of England. The King was the Head of Church of England, hence the Church and State could not be separate.
The separation of Church and State had nothing to do with religious expressions.
Contemporary Church and State issues would be better understood if we thought in terms of worldviews rather than religion. One's worldview necessitates the practicing of one's religion in his daily life. Those who insist we must eradicate "God" from all State expressions, are imposing their "religion" upon all of the rest of us. In reality, they are trying to subordinate the State to observe their religion, and they do so with more fervent and narrow minded zeal than that of which they accuse the rest of us.
Anyhow, I hope Ann makes a lot more boo boos, and gets a lot more of tothesource's attention - for or against. Thanks for tothesource.
- Dan Kazarian
I think thee doth protest too much. You accuse Coulter of confusing liberalism with secularism. You fail by substituting the classical definition of liberalism for the current political philosophy of liberalism, which seeks to excise God and godliness from society. To use your labels, modern-day liberals are secularists. It matters not one whit if some who proclaim liberalism also profess theism of some sort. If someone claims to be a Christian or Jew (I'll leave the Mohammedans and other heathens to their own devices), but will defend the evils of abortion, homosexuality, state theft of private property for politicians' personal agrandizement, etc., they are liars, showing they profess that which they don't possess. The leaders of a movement define that movement, and the leaders of liberalism exalt individuals' choices over righteousness and the state over the individual except when the individual wants to make evil choices. And Ann documents that extremely well in attention-getting ways. Some are just too uncomfortable with someone calling a spade a spade and letting the chips fall where they may.
Blessings and Peace,
- Keith R. Snyder
Pastor, Copper Country Church of the Nazarene
Slander of anyone, on the right or the left of the political spectrum is sinful. - P. N.
Seems to me Ann is RIGHT ON. It is all you bleeding heart liberals who are not concerned about the welfare of the citizens of the United States. Only your own selfish agendas!!!!! Maybe it would serve you well in actually listening to what she is saying and STOP being so ANTI-AMERICAN!!! Tothesource is NOT THE SOURCE.
- Carl E. Gideon Jr.