How far is too far?
In the Anglican blogosphere, and in the media at large, the left is always calling upon the right to adopt a more civil tone. And vice versa. The most recent case in point involves a dispute between the conservative commentator Ann Coulter, and Elizabeth Edwards, wife of the Democratic presidential candidate.
Joan Walsh of Salon agrees with Edwards, who thinks that Coulter crossed the line in her comments about Edwards' husband. She writes:
On "Scarborough Country" last night I was forced to point out that Edwards didn't "pick a fight" with Coulter (Dan Abrams' words); Coulter picked the fight when she called Edwards a "faggot" at the Conservative Political Action Committee meeting in January and cruelly accused him four years ago of hyping his son Wade's death. Poor Pat Buchanan kept insisting Coulter was "a good debater" who hadn't said anything particularly outrageous. In the end, I was forced to repeat her gay slur against Edwards and toss in that she called Vice President Al Gore "a total fag." I don't use those words, but it was starting to get silly, debating whether what she said was out of bounds without being able to say what she said. So I did.
David Kuo of Beliefnet, a former member of the Bush administration says it is time for conservative Christians to denounce Coulter. He writes:
Christians involved in politics must do the hardest thing of all - they must push for their positions in such a way as to bring glory to God. If they don't do that, if they don't sublimate their politics to God something horrible happens - politics becomes their God.History is replete with examples of how this works well - the Underground Railroad, abolition, the civil rights movement, women's suffrage - this is not one of those times. Too many conservative Christian activists are behaving as if God is subordinate to their political desires...or worse that he is simply a pawn to be used in their desires.
Is this a free speech issue? Are the Edwards' trying to squelch Coulter. Or is this a case of censuring, rather than censoring?
Any reader of The National Review knows that there is a range of conservative viewpoints, which can be expressed articulately and civilly.
In my opinion, Ann Coulter is an embarrassment to any point on that continuum. I ignore her.
Posted by EHCulver![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/nav-commenters.gif)
|
June 30, 2007 11:42 AM
Ann Coulter is like those bullies in Junior High -- who cares what she thinks? I agree with the poll on aol - 74% believe she has crossed the line. The only good thing is that she drives people away from her political point of view and into a more middle ground.
Posted by Ann Fontaine![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/nav-commenters.gif)
|
June 30, 2007 11:57 AM
I take note that this morning over at Standing Firm they're commenting on the post
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/4065/
headlined "Britain's New Pro-Gay Laws: Roadmap to Persecution?"
Coulter is exercing her free speech. She's also leveraging outrage to promote herself. She's not representative of the right, indeed she brings discredit to the right -- if its leadership fails to censure her (hmmm, or is that exactly what she's waiting for to line her purse all the more? -- the Paris Hilton of the right, at least we're talking about her).
But it is incumbent on those on Episcopalian religious right to take a look at others at Standing Firm are saying, and censure them if appropriate.
Just as it is appropriate for Bush to call upon moderate Muslims to censure immoderate Muslims,
http://pewforum.org/news/display.php?NewsID=13828
Posted by John B. Chilton![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/nav-commenters.gif)
|
June 30, 2007 12:13 PM
The Edwards campaign is saying that Coulter has been attacking John Edwards so virilently because he is the candidate most likely to appeal to the electorate in the general election. And they just may be right about that!
See this link:http://johnedwards.com/rightwing/
Posted by A MacArthur![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/nav-commenters.gif)
|
June 30, 2007 1:15 PM
Coulter's public persona is revolting. Notice that I said her persona, not Coulter as a person. She cultivates the persona deliberately to provoke, and she provokes revulsion in me.
I would not waste my time engaging with her, because she is not serious, nor is she genuine.
June Butler
Posted by GrandmèreMimi![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/nav-commenters.gif)
|
June 30, 2007 2:31 PM