Cover Your Ears! Brit Hume, Ann Coulter, And The Cross

Fox News contributor Brit Hume recently said something controversial -- on TV! -- about the nature of Christianity. Perhaps you heard his blasphemous remarks; perhaps you heard his great insult.

And perhaps you didn't.

Well, at least one person did -- Ann Coulter. I know, I know, she's a firebrand. She's a bombshell bomb thrower; a crass ideologue; a political pit bull. But set the caricatures of her aside for a moment and read what she has to say about Christianity, about it being the best deal on the planet. Is she right? Has Ann Coulter presented the gospel in a way that does justice to the "good news"?

You tell me. I'd love to hear what you think of "If You Can Find A Better Deal, Take It!" And I'd like to hear what you think of Mr. Hume's remarks, too. (Coulter quotes him at length.)

Peace.

Flashpan Friday: Sparks On Anything 2

Someone might easily find fault with my last two entries, but nobody can accuse me of not trying to keep things interesting. I don't mind looking a little unbalanced, especially in a world that is largely off-kilter.
_______________

Last year, the liberal blogger and politico Markos Moulitsas Zúniga, popularly known as "Kos" and founder of "The Daily Kos", opined (and I paraphrase), "Republicans don't know how to govern and Democrats don't know how to win." Somewhere on this blog I pointed out how strange this statement was, for if Democrats know how to govern, then surely they would know how to win, which is, in truth, part of governance; since they don't know how to win, one is compelled to conclude that they cannot govern. And, conversely, if Republicans know how to win, which takes no small act of governance, then Republicans can indeed govern.

But forsooth, the great Kos received his wish in November of 2006. The Democrats won.

And now they govern like a high-school student council. It is like watching children playing a grown-ups' game. The only thing they seem particularly good at is turning everything into a convenient scandal: "It's hearing time in Washington!" Talk about a quagmire.

That the great posturing party is now in control leaves the attentive wondering whether the Democratic leadership is capable of anything other than shrieking. Well, shrieking and resolving. And more resolving, over and over.

____________

What, do YOU think, is the bottom line to all this pandering, and all these many hearings held in Washington to such fanfare? We have threats of subpoenas in a case where there can be no crime; we have hearings about the imminent end of the world if we belch forth any more carbon-dioxide. We have much bluster about the great liar in the White House; we hear much invective hurled at President Bush's competence and his gross dependence on Der Führer Rove. We hear a priori assertions that the war is lost, or that it is a war with "no cause" (I do not expect you to be able to figure that one out).

But what is the reason for all this foolishness, all these empty words, empty war resolutions, and empty warnings? What is the ultimate end of all this? In short, I believe it is the end of thought, democracy and freedom. The leaders of the Democratic Party want you to believe that the final word has been spoken, and that it is irrefutable, unquestionable, undeniable. One party knows all, thinks all, declares all. The debate is over. Bush lied and people died; the "consensus" is indubitable, and to deny it is to deny the Holocaust; the White House is secretive, cunning, and malicious through and through; the dismissal of US attorneys is proof of treason; the CIA's most beloved spy was viciously outed by a cabal of neo-con tyrants who enjoy torturing innocents "in super-duper secret torture dens at Guantanamo Bay" in a "culture of corruption," the very culture that hates injured soldiers in Building 18. These dogmas are self-evident.

But the big reason is this: Such rhetoric and puffing out of the chest, such wailing and gaveling, is all meant to make people dependent, not on themselves in Emersonian self-reliance or in the deep individualism of Protestantism, not on God or the Spirit of God, but on a group of men and women who have a donkey as their mascot. It is about the end of intellectual and spiritual freedom; it is the end of non-comformity as Americans once knew it. You must depend. You cannot choose, you cannot question. Doubt has been erased, faith is made certain. There is no more clouded glass through which we look; Al Gore and the deliverers have spoken, and all mysteries are made clear. Now, just submit! (Islam!)

Might might not make right, but hearings surely do.

Shhh! Our idols are in session. We await our orders on what to think.

___________

I can't help but refer readers to Ann Coulter's latest column. She may be coarse, she may act far too unlady-like for the fastidious fusspots among us who believe that women should behave a certain prescribed, decorous way. But I find her funny; she's a blonde-haired, long-legged, too-skinny Don Rickles with a formidable pen. She may be wrong on all counts (she isn't), she may be hyperbolic and mean, but she is not a trifle to be dismissed. In her inimitable manner (at least by me), Coulter writes

If this is how global warming devotees defend their scientific theory, it may be a few tweaks short of a scientific theory. Scientific facts are not subject to liberal bullying — which, by the way, is precisely why liberals hate science.

Not bad, Ann. You definitely gave me a good laugh with ¶8.

Peace.

©Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

Playing Hockey With Ann Coulter

You have probably heard this so many times you are surely ready to spin your head around and spew green vomit, but I must say it nonetheless: yesterday was the 6th of June, 2006, or 06.06.06. If the Beast of the Apocalypse is a day, then yesterday was beastly. But I am not going to discuss Satan here, though I am going to discuss Ann Coulter, which, I know, is pretty much the same thing if you are a left-leaning pol or pundit unnerved by Ms. Coulter's incendiary prose and devilishly long, and beguiling, legs. She is a feisty one, that Ann.

Yesterday marked the debut of her book, "Godless: The Church of Liberalism." No doubt it is a rowdy read, and, well, an arousing one, too. While I can't imagine a first date with Ms. Coulter, I could imagine a 666th one, and I think by then she would have me deconstructed to a rather small figure of a man. In fact, I would be reduced to little more than an exclamation point chained to her ankle bracelet, a mere punctuation mark, the leftovers of my last two cries, "What the ?!" and "Help me!"

Anyway, back to the book. Ms. Coulter made the talk show circuit yesterday promoting her newest work, having a moment of difficulty (when has she ever had an easy interview?) with Matt Lauer and a less than flirtatious moment with Alan Colmes. In the latter interview, along with Colmes' co-host Sean Hannity, Ms. Coulter revealed that Christianity is her motivating force. She insisted that it enfuses her every strident phrase and pugnacious punctuation mark; that it calls her to take a stand, to confront lies, to battle darkness, to challenge the Zeitgeist, and to show off her legs as much as possible.

But what is curious is something that has to do with Contratimes. It is not that I know Ann Coulter, nor is it that I have often written about her. What is curious is that yesterday dozens of people suddenly showed up here looking for Ann. According to my statcounter, there was a sudden surge of online queries for "Ann Coulter and Bob Guccione III." And their queries sent them here. You see, Ann Coulter, a Cornell grad who once dated Bill Maher (another Cornell grad), also dated the heir of the Penthouse magazine empire, Bob Guccione. So, why this sudden interest in that fact? You know why.

The sudden interest has got to do with Ann Coulter claiming to be a Christian. For we all know a real Christian would never date a pornographer's son. We all know that Christians are ALWAYS to be nice, with their actions and words always subdued, proper; with their words tumbling over lips of purity, perfect and prim.

In other words, Ann Coulter is a hypocrite. Of course, I have no doubt that she is. We are all hypocrites. But what alarms me most about the charge of hypocrisy aimed at Christians is that it is always pronounced with such righteous indignation. Where, after all, should hypocrites be if not in the Church? Doesn't everyone realize that Christianity is the household of the broken; that it is not like the Democratic National Convention, which is the household of the whole? Why be surprised to learn that Christians are hypocrites? They are sinners, after all.

I attended one of the elite evangelical colleges in the United States. This does not make me an evangelical, mind you, anymore than going to the Jesuit-run Georgetown made Bill Clinton a Catholic. But the prejudices to which I was exposed (by outsiders) were often astounding. Once, when our hockey team was pounding the pastries out of a visiting team, a group of visiting fans of the visiting (non-evangelical) hockey squad astonished by my alma mater's bruising checks asked me during a period break, "Your team is rough. Isn't everyone here studying to be a bunch of priests?" Alas, such ignorance. Yes, we are all -- from pre-med women to elementary-ed men, from chemists to philosophers, from poets to journalists -- studying to be a "bunch of priests." But the broader implication was comical: Real Christians don't play hockey roughly; they don't check or battle for the puck; they don't compete. (Oh, and don't let me forget: There was one time that a New Hampshire team left our ice because we played "too rough". No kidding, they actually went home after the second period.)

You know the implied line: Christians must always be meek. Sort of like St. Paul, when he wished aloud that the Judaizers in Galatia would cut off their own genitals.

Ann Coulter is playing a game, and she is competing. The left has its nasty pugilists, its bullies. Liberal pundits have said countless outrageous things; and they should not suddenly blush when a conservative says some pretty outrageous things in reply. The prophetic voice, in the truest sense of that descriptive and necessary voice, is often filled with hyperbole; with strong language that makes us blush, cringe, squirm. Often idolatrous excesses could only be staved off by prophetic excesses, by language and rebuke that stops listeners dead in their tracks. I am not suggesting that Ms. Coulter is a prophet, nor am I suggesting that she does not often (always?) go too far. What I am saying is that the Left is also filled with hypocrites, who suddenly act like a bunch of Puritans when listening to Coulter and yet giggle with delight at the offenses which pour forth from the "satirists" at the Daily Kos. Clearly, Ann Coulter (and one has to be blind not to see this) is having fun. And pointing that out is not to suggest that she is merely having fun; that this is all a wink-wink, nod-nod, flash-flirtatious-smile game she is doing for cash. She strikes me as sincere. But one thing I am saying: she is a formidable foe.

There is some passage in the New Testament suggesting that the Antichrist will deceive "even the elect." In other words, even the Christians will find the Antichrist desirable. Alas, Al Gore may indeed be the one bearing the numeric marks of darkness, but Ann Coulter, surely, strikes a confusing pose for many of us.

As I think about it, I never once expected the Antichrist to look quite like that. I mean, I am of the generation weaned on The Omen's black-clad Damien. I never could have guessed that the devil might really be a Dame in a blue dress. O, men! Beware!

Peace.

©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.

Technorati tags: Ann Coulter, Antichrist, 666, Al Gore, The Omen

The Most Important Question: On Inevitability And The War On Terror, Part II

In Part I of this series (which is a prerequisite for understanding what follows), I argued that the Islamic article of belief – al-Qadar – the sixth of six such articles, must lead us who reside in the West to this important question: Has Allah willed the destruction – or the submission – of the West?

As I have shown, al-Qadar is the will of Allah; that all that comes to pass has been willed by him. Thus, as the towers imploded at Ground Zero, Muslims submitted to Allah's will – the towers were willed down by Allah's fiat. There is therefore no real condemnation of the act of terror: Since it happened, it was meant to happen. There is no denying Allah's hand.

Of course, this teaching is fraught with difficulty, as many Muslim scholars admit. Where is human free will in Allah's sovereignty? Does Allah will evil and sinfulness? How does a Muslim understand devastating personal or military defeat? (For some analysis of the problems such questions raise, follow the links in Part 1.)

Irrespective of the difficulty of al-Qadar, the fact remains that most if not all practicing Muslims are reluctant to either condemn or reject this article of belief. Why? Because it is fundamental to that faith, and to the very essence of Islam, a word which means "to submit" or "surrender". Allah must be sovereign. He can not be surprised; he cannot have other wills competing against his own; he cannot NOT know everything. Otherwise, he would not be all-powerful or all-knowing. In short, he would not be Allah.

THE WAR ON TERROR AND AL-QADAR

In Tuesday's Wall Street Journal, an Israeli army major reservist wrote about his role in removing his fellow citizens from Gaza, a painful and harrowing ordeal. Michael B. Oren writes about how he felt prior to that dreadful eviction:

"My feelings were, at best, ambivalent. I wanted to end Israel's occupation of Gaza's 1.4 million Palestinians and preserve Israel's Jewish majority, but feared abetting the terrorists' claim that Israel had fled under fire." [emphasis added]

(see Page A10, August 23, 2005)

What is important to see in Oren's comments is what I've highlighted in bold: He feared that Israel's withdrawal would fuel the terrorists' belief that Israel was routed by superior force. Why is that important? Because it supports the Islamic belief that, if a thing happens, Allah wanted it to happen. Israel's withdrawal from Gaza proves the supremacy of Allah's will, and the supremacy of his Lordship over even other gods. After all, there is no other God but Allah. The Jewish God is no match at all.

Remember Osama bin Laden's celebration over the surprising (to him) collapse of the World Trade Center towers? The collapses proved his faith in Allah; Allah was on his side. Similarly, when the mujahideen pushed back the Soviet invaders in Afghanistan, this success was proof that Allah was against the greatest Western super-power in Europe and Asia. And the retreat of American troops in Somalia proved more of the same.

So Israel's "retreat" is seen as a defeat, and a sign that Allah is on the move.

WHAT ARE OUR OPTIONS IN THE MIDDLE EAST?

For a moment, let us countenance the foreign policy of someone like Cindy Sheehan, the grieving mother of a fallen soldier camped out at "Camp Casey" in Crawford, TX. Let us agree that America should begin an immediate and systematic withdrawal of all American troops from Iraq and even Afghanistan. What would those actions do to Islamic religious beliefs about its holy war against Western infidels?

Answer: It would fuel confidence that Allah was in fact supreme, and supremely interested in defeating the infidel West. It would vindicate the insurgents' attacks along countless roadsides. It would be cause for celebration. What will be was MEANT to be. Meant by Allah.

Thus, retreat and withdrawal from the Middle East is an act of concession on a religious scale, and not a military one.

In Part 1, I asserted that the West, particularly the United States, might want to rethink its military strategy in Iraq or withdraw. Clearly, withdrawal is not an option. But its current military strategy may in fact be as ineffective and dangerous as withdrawal. Why?

If in fact al-Qadar infuses all of Islam, or most of it, then perhaps the only military strategy effective in dealing with Islamic militants is profound military superiority. And I mean profound. (Please note: I am not advocating this, only analyzing what is before us.) If, for instance, the West were to destroy all Islamic holy sites, making them in fact uninhabitable and unrecognizable; if the West obliterated every alleged Allah-backed stronghold, the Islamic faith in Allah would be sorely shaken, and may perhaps never recover. In fact, Islam might even be destroyed, or reformed into something hardly recognizable to its current form.

Again, I am not advocating this, nor am I wishing this. I am merely suggesting what may be the only viable military option to confront those Muslims committed to Allah's victory over alleged Western infidelity.

There is, of course, another way. We could do what I said yesterday: We could let the theologians fight the battle.

"CONVERT THEM TO CHRISTIANITY"

Recall what Ann Coulter said shortly after 9/11: The West should, among other things, invade Islamic countries and "convert them to Christianity". In a way, her remarks were brilliantly on point. For what we need to do is win the propaganda war with radical Islam: We need to show the most aggressive corners of Islam that the religious idea of Allah's sovereignty is not intellectually viable. In other words, we should not be launching sorties of bombs on Muslim strongholds, but sorties of brochures pointing out the weakness of a deity that wills everything. (Of course, this would violate Church/State or Mosque/State separation requirements. But what must America do if indeed the war on terror consists of a religion battling a secular state. Should that secular state ignore religion altogether? Should it be mute about it? Or should it engage its opponents in a battle of wits?)

What? Have I lost my mind? No. What I am saying is this: Any deity deemed to be all-powerful is not a deity if he (or she) WILLS everything. Willing EVERYTHING is a sign of weakness, not strength. Really, who is stronger, that Being which MAKES everything turn out his way, or that Being which permits things to happen randomly and yet nonetheless conform to his will?

Think of it this way (I'll try not to be too theological here). Imagine two men in an adventurer's race from New York City to Katamandu. One racer maps out every step; makes plans to the final minute; mapping out every runway and highway and airport escalator. The other racer plans nothing other than a willful first step. And with that first step he is carried in a whirlwind of events: he is hit by a car, taken to hospital, blown out a window by a tornado, lands in a ship, shipwrecks at sea, swims to shore, is offered a bicycle ride by a one-legged man. The racer with the plan and the map is making great headway, and yet, at the finish line, is amazed to find that his opponent is buying fabric in a Katamandu market. Which of these racers is really the more adventurous, and even the more powerful? Is the man who plans and controls every step powerful, or the one who finds his way through chaos?

But we are not talking about men here, we are talking of gods. And if there is a God, it would seem to me that He must be so all-powerful that His will would still cosmically prevail without His needing to decree every single instant. (As theologian Karl Barth said of the Christian Incarnation, God is so omnipotent He can be impotent and still be God. God has the power to be powerless.) Moreover, His Will is not some sort of preconceived outcome, like decreeing that Jerusalem is the seat of Utopia. His Will is not a quantity but a quality: It is not that the end of all things is defined by the walls of a perfected state. The end is defined by whether the end of all things is LOVING. Hence, God's will is more about His heart than His head. He does not have a PLAN. The creation is enfused with His nature, and thus, no matter how creation unfolds, through myriad accidents and trials and seemingly random events, it will end up according to God's nature. The paths to the end may be infinite; but the end will always be the same: God's will crosses the finish line first, and the prize is love and gentleness and prodigal generosity. The prize is not a better government or a better nation-state or caliphate.

It is this sort of argument that needs to be dropped on the "fatalists" at war with us. What is needed is the sowing of healthy doubt. What is needed is to make people, no matter who they are, doubt themselves enough to wonder if they in fact "might be wrong." What we need ultimately is the destruction of certainty; religious certainty.

Who are the most gentle, easy people with whom to debate religion? Is it that person who KNOWS they are right about God? Is it that person who is certain you are wrong for believing in Christ? Is it that arrogant agnostic certain of his doubt? Or is it that person who is health-fully doubtful, recognizing the role of faith in all knowledge; recognizing that our certainties are often the worse thing about us? In short, are not the best dialogues on religion between those who are genuinely (not feignedly) humble about their beliefs, admitting their vulnerabilities and doubts?

There are only a few ways to fight the War on Terror: As an all out flexing of muscularity and blustering of machismo; a turning heel and running scared; a half-hearted display of strength; a reasoned, calculated blend of force and diplomacy. America may in fact be involved in the shrewdest type of warfare ever seen: superior firepower blended with conviviality and fraternity and patient restraint. But unless the War on Terror includes a better bomb for the mind and heart – the religious mind and heart – the war will continue on its perennial, 4000-year-old course.

This is a religious battle over the nature of God. I am, I think, certain of it. But I could be wrong.

Peace to you.

(Here is Part III, the epilogue.)

©Bill Gnade 2005/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved