Ann Coulter (Is she hateful?)

The Jesuits are conservative when it suits their agenda and liberal when it suits their agenda, and their agenda is to overthrow the Protestant Reformation and bring the whole world under the Pope, also bring back the Inquisition to torture and murder everyone they call a "heretic." How they run a college depends on what's going to serve those interests best.Here are some references, most of them available online.European Institute for Protestant Studies
Book Online: The Jesuit Conspiracy by Jacopo Leone
Book Online: Secret History of the Jesuits, Edmond Paris
Book Online: Blaise Pascal Provincial Letters (Jesuits)
Book Online: Walter Walsh, Secret History of the Oxford Movement (1898)
Book: Papal Power, Henry T. Hudson
Book: Ecclesiastical Megalomania, John W Robbins
Book: Geese in their Hoods, Charles Spurgeon Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Here are some references, most of them available online.European Institute for Protestant Studies
Book Online: The Jesuit Conspiracy by Jacopo Leone
Book Online: Secret History of the Jesuits, Edmond Paris
Book Online: Blaise Pascal Provincial Letters (Jesuits)
Book Online: Walter Walsh, Secret History of the Oxford Movement (1898)
Book: Papal Power, Henry T. Hudson
Book: Ecclesiastical Megalomania, John W Robbins
Book: Geese in their Hoods, Charles SpurgeonPerhaps I can locate some good quotes for you later. Maybe even get the links to the above.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I have a feeling I could come up with all kinds of quotes from all kinds of reputable sources and that wouldn't count as evidence for you, so instead of going to the trouble, let me ask you,What would you take as evidence that Rome has the intention of reinstating the Inquisition if they have the power to do so?Would evidence that they HAVE reinstated it wherever they've had the power mean anything? Would evidence that they'd been torturing "heretics" in the dungeons of Rome up to the middle of the 19th century carry any weight? Would a picture do or would I have to produce the body of a victim? Which you would claim wasn't a victim anyway.Just tell me what counts for you and I'll see if I can find it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Ya know what, I think I could come up with evidence that they still have this goal, don't know about "overwhelming" by your standards, but it would take me a while because I've just been learning about all this myself. Contrary to subbie's remark, until recently I had no suspicion that the papacy was continuing its Counter Reformation in the present, or that the Jesuits have been in the forefront of that effort, OR that they are still serious about enacting the Inquisition (and by the way you'll want evidence for this too -- Hitler modeled the Holocaust on the Inquisition and I'm pretty sure I can dig up quotes for that, but not tonight). Anyway, it's all pretty new to me too.I thought I could find the necessary information in some books I have but I haven't located it yet. Will let you know when I have something.As for capability, I believe I said "when they have the power" and it is clear that they don't right now have the power.But from some things I've been hearing they're working on it through the European Union. Yup, A revived Holy Roman Empire with the Pope running things behind the scenes. The Fourth Reich. All part of the global plan that America will no doubt come under as well. They received quite a blow when they lost their centuries-old "holy" Empire to the Reformation, and then tried to revive it again in the Third Reich (well, what do you suppose the FIRST two "reichs" were anyway?)(I had this wrong at first, it was the Roman Empire itself that was the First Reich, the Holy Roman Empire that lasted from 962 to 1806 was the Second)I recommend that list of books for anyone who is interested in the history of these things. I've only read around in them myself.But this topic is getting away from the topic of this thread. Apparently the Pres of Fordham doesn't like Ann Coulter but supposedly the Republican club dropped her without his influence. Hey MAYBE it's true, no way to know for sure, all anyone has is the public statements.As for whether that Jesuit President is liberal or conservative, I think it's pretty telling when the epithet "hate speech" is trotted out. He may be conservative on some matters (or maybe not, you certainly proved nothing about this, just asserted it) but that phrase is a liberal red flag.Anyway, public statements about Rome aren't all that trustworthy either. I've learned that Wikipedia and no doubt other internet sources, is heavily "edited" in Rome's favor, oh not in any obvious way, they're too refined for that. And I've come to understand that books written since about 1920 on this subject aren't trustworthy, so most of the books on the list I gave are older. Not that there aren't honest Jesuits of course. At least one of the books was written by a Jesuit who found out what the organization is really all about.And by the way, you demand evidence of me for a casual statement I made for which I did at least provide a list of references, but did you offer evidence yourself for your statement that the Jesuits are conservative? Nope. Just bare assertion. And apparently you don't expect to have to produce evidence. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : to add signature, and to clarify stuffEdited by Faith, : correct what the three "Reichs" wereEdited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : add "Reich" to "The Fourth" and close a parenthesis.

Oh this Jesuit College is REALLY "conservative," ha ha:A typical liberal university with a typical list of liberal extracurriculars. No, there's nothing "conservative" about THIS Jesuit University, jar. But you didn't even try to produce any evidence. Here it is:

First of all I'm claiming that those terms are liberal flag words, right out of the Political Correctness handbook. "Multiculturalism" "gender" "sexual identity" "social justice and oppression" straight from the Liberal Agenda.Oh not that they don't have ordinary meanings for ordinary naive people, which perhaps you are, but a conservative recognizes them as PC flag words for the Liberal Agenda, otherwise sometimes known as Cultural Marxism. I guess the propagandists have done their work well since you don't even know these are liberal terms.As for what conservatives do, or conservative universities, conservatism is in such disarray these days there may be no such thing any more, and they may do all kinds of liberal things in their confusion.But I don't know.The old fashioned sort of extracurricular list would have had a more academic focus, you know, Honor Society, French Club (or Latin or Greek or German), Arts Club, Writers Club, Music Club, Computer Club, Science Club, Debate Club, Community Service Club, Political Science Club and so on.instead of sitting around "exploring" personal attributes and situations and making a fetish or a "cause" out of them.I guess liberals don't know they are liberals these days. Edited by Faith, : add signature

Simply asserting that the Jesuits were opposed to the "liberalism" of the Protestant Reformation is NOT evidence of anything, jar, it's just what I called it, a bare assertion."Liberalism" of the Protestant Reformation, my foot. They opposed the Protestant Reformation because it got back to the Bible as the foundation of Christianity, a pretty conservative move if you ask me, and threw out the traditions of Rome that were contrary to the true Biblical faith, and their objective was to bring people back to the Pope. Still is.As I just explained to Panda, those terms are Liberal Agenda terms, they mark the university as a liberal university, and the phrase "hate speech" marks your "conservative" Jesuit as a liberal. That's the point I was making. I made it and it stands, your liberal spin notwithstanding. Edited by Faith, : add signature

I don't want to make you jealous, but that was a compliment so thanks. I don't know if you are a Christian or not but if you are, pray God to guide your posts and give you clear thoughts. I do. Not always, unfortunately.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Not as stated, but I think he may simply not be clearly saying what he thinks he intends to say. I could be wrong. Maybe he's trying to say that we are saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone, which is the truth, which means that we are not saved by our own works or actions. But how we are saved is one thing and "Christianity [having] absolutely nothing to do with our actions" is something else. Our actions are everything once we are saved.Hope that's clear.

You make the raw assertion that the Jesuits were opposed to the "liberalism" of the Protestant Reformation, you call that "evidence" and when I point out it's not evidence at all but merely a bare assertion you have the unmitigated gall to call that "a silly thing to say?" Well, how very jar-like of you.I have NO interest in discussing the Protestant Reformation with you. What I said is the truth, and I'll say it again: It was true when I said it then and it's true when I say it now. That's what the Protestant Reformation was all about, protesting against the false teachings of the Roman Church and reforming the Church to found it upon the Bible.The Reformation gave Rome a lot of grief, converted many of her vassal states to Protestant nations, and that's why they are still working to bring down the Reformation. Doing a good job of it too I must say.And that's what inspired Ignatius of Loyola to found the Jesuits, to fight against the Reformation. When? Oh sometime in the sixteenth century, soon after the Reformation got underway. Ha ha, you think like a Jesuit. Here's where you made the claim that the Jesuits are Conservatives, in Message 32: A pack of lies except for the fact that they were formed during the Counter Reformation, which was their whole raison d'etre and still is.

Help conserve the status quo? Ah, I see. Yes, you ARE a jesuitical casuist aren't you? Yup, They wanted to get back to the false Church of Rome, that WAS the status quo for about a thousand years. You are right there. Sure, let's "conservatively" support the religion of Anticrhist, that's what true conservatism is.Well, if that IS what you meant when you called the Jesuits "conservative" -- then I agree, but that is not how the terms are used and you know it. In today's political terminology at least the Jesuit Fordham university is "liberal." Let's just try to keep all the categories straight.Conservative in that the Jesuits want to bring us all back under the Antichrist Pope who ruled Europe for a thousand years, sure, I'll concede that irrelevant sophistic point, and liberal in that they foster all the familiar liberal political causes as shown on that list under "multiculturalism" which in itself is a liberal flag word.Yes, again, I am definitely NOT interested in getting into the Reformation with you beyond what I've been sucked into on this thread. Ha ha, how clever you liberal sophists are. No, what I'm saying is that the very concept of Hate Speech is a big fat lie invented by liberals to demonize conservatives. When someone, like the Jesuit president of Fordham, describes someone by that term, he is showing himself to be a liberal slanderer of conservatives. No, I'm saying those are liberal flag WORDS, TERMS, and they are meant to demonize conservatives just as you are now using them to attempt to do. Those are words that pack a whole agenda of liberal politics within them. "Social justice" is a flag word that comes out of a socialist frame of reference. It has nothing to do with justice, it's just a propaganda word. Sure we'll discuss them, we'll debate them, to expose their liberal underpinnings.By the way you said the Jesuits were Conservatives in answer to foreveryoung's answer to Theodoric, here: Well, Theodoric was wrong, as it turns out that Fordham is clearly a typical liberal university and its President by using the liberal flag term "hate speech" has shown himself to be a liberal as well, a liberal Jesuit. So in this case foreveryoung was right, though you went on to put him down, saying Jesuits are Conservative, and now you are trying to make that word mean something it doesn't mean in normal political discourse. Oh you are a fox, you jesuit you.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : change subtitle

Hi RAZD,
I've been following your cancer thread and I'm glad to see you hanging in there.But I've got to say that this post is a bunch of blabbertygook. Patronizing among other things.The reason foreveryoung gets angry is that, if he is a true Christian, which I don't know yet but hope he is, he hasn't brought his emotions and thoughts "captive" to Christ, or under the Lordship of Christ, which is hard work for all of us and I've certainly blown it big time myself.But there are more proximal reasons, as they say, and EvC is a place to try one's patience if ever there was one.One proximal reason is that he doesn't always get his views clearly said but you all hold him to his words anyway and then he doesn't have a chance to correct them. That's frustrating for anyone.Yet he did get his basic opinion said well enough on this thread right away. The President of Fordham accused Ann Coulter of "hate speech" and he objected to that as a hateful thing to say about her. I also don't follow Coulter much but what I've seen of her I've found to be funny and smart and insightful, and yes, very acerbic. That's what polemicists and humorists do, and there are certainly many of those on the Left. She speaks for many conservatives, yes, many. But nobody here likes her and anyone defending her gets trounced. Can't even have a difference of opinion without getting told you're some kind of idiot. That's frustrating.Then he gets contradicted and mocked even when he says something clear and truthful, such as when he said "Jesuits are liberal people." I said Jesuits can be either conservative or liberal depending on how the wind is blowing, but he's right in the current context that it's blowing liberal and they're liberal and the President of Fordham is liberal, but this was contradicted by jar, who flatly declared that Jesuits are Conservative, who turned out to be not only wrong but deviously sophsitic in his defintiion of "conservative." Would you believe he meant by "Conservative" that the Jesuits were formed in the Catholic CounterReformation to preserve the status quo, which is a "conservative" definition after all. Do we use the term that way today? Shall we say that being for gay marriage and abortion and socialist values is "Conservative" because they are held by a Jesuit who wants to see the Protestant Reformation overthrown so we can return to the "status quo" of the Holy Roman Empire? This is rather frustrating.I eventually showed that the university itself is typically liberal although the liberals here didnt recognize it and seemed to take offense at the obvious fact, which puzzles me, and foreveryoung chimed in to agree with me that they don't know they're liberals, and got mocked and scorned for that too. Well, they don't know it, but they don't know they don't know it. Etc. That's frustrating.And now unkind people are exposing his angry PMs.So there's a LOT of provocation here. We don't jneed the psychobabble unless you want to drive the guy over the cliff.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I understand your feeling, nwr, and I'm glad you treasure my Jeer, but your 9 rating makes a bit of a hypocrite of you. From a Bible-believing Christian YEC Creationist Conservative point of view it's a high honor to get a very low rating at EvC.

Well, Crash, I am not familiar enough with foreveryoung to have a sense of his record here and am likely to confuse him with other Christian/creationist posters too. All I know is that on this thread there was plenty of reason for a person who isn't very experienced at this kind of debate to lose his temper. I'm afraid you would have to give me examples of this as I don't think of her that way, I think of her as targeting the establishment that holds certain ideas, not people they hold the ideas about. Or really, she's targeting the IDEAS, period, the ideas about how best to run a society, not people. But perhaps you can show me I'm wrong, and I can tell you that liberal jokes and jabs can stab to the heart of an ordinary conservative like me and I'm not one of "the powerful" so I'm not sure your distinction makes a difference. Well, first of all how often does anyone on the Left attack someone on the Left? But second, the Catholic Church? Fox News? The RNC? Most Christians have no clue about the Catholic Church, so effective has been their propaganda, and there ARE many Catholic conservatives so evangelicals just blindly join with them. Lots of them at Fox for instance. Actually the RNC is coming under a lot of fire from conservatives lately, I don't know about Ann. But I'm not really politically focused these days and haven't been keeping up with a lot of stuff. As I said I don't see her this way, you'd have to demonstrate it. I'd object if I thought she was bullying vulnerable people -- i'd FEEL it -- hasn't happened. Think, Crash. Dictionary definitions are just a pedantic evasion here. What jar meant, or after the fact says he meant (I don't think it's what Theodoric meant when he said the Jesuits are conservative, or what you mean either, down the post when you say Jesuit colleges are usually conservative), is that the Jesuits were formed to preserve the status quo of the domination of the world by Catholicism, i.e., the Holy Roman Empire, against the "liberalism" of Protestantism. Not in so many words but that's what it comes down to. All that stuff about freedom of religion/conscience that came out of that lesson learned in Europe but someone can talk about returning to the tyranny of Rome as a "conservative" point of view? The mind reels.If that's Conservativism I'm not a conservative, but I oppose gay marriage, abortion, legalized marijuana, the whole idea of "multiculturalism," and a whole swarm of concepts that I identify as "liberal." If you want to try to come up with more accurate terminology for the different positions, go for it, but at the moment it's devious to define Jesuits as "Conservative" when they are pushing those positions conservatives know as liberal, and when it turns out that "Conservative" means favoring the reestablishment Holy Roman Empire. (Oh you poor poor people who have no sense of history and have no idea what it would mean if that happened, who have no sense of how western prosperity and freedom have depended on the legacy of the Protestant Reformation and are so gleefully scorning it and trying to kill it, and succeeding I might add. Oh you have no idea. Sorry, digression.) As I said, I don't know enough beyond what I've already said about it. I will defend the underdog in some situations and that's probably a lot of it in this case. I've seen far worse on the Christian/Creationist side than anything he said on this thread. I really do think he got treated unfairly here. But that's par for the course and we do have to learn to deal with that.I'm happy to hear you say that you find jar and Theodoric frustrating! But on my side of things it's hard to find others to align with at all. Too many differences among us. That almost makes me cry, Crash. I can't remember getting any kind of compliment on my arguments here from the Loyal Opposition before. Maybe it's happened but I don't remember it if so. Wow, I'm actually making a better case for something HERE? It won't last but thanks for the momentary cheer. Which I pretty much said myself somewhere along the thread. Conservatism is in bad shape these days and there might not be a university I'd regard as conservative at all. I'm willing to believe that there COULD be some Jesuit colleges that are conservative because as I said they blow both ways, but you'd have to show me one. I know there are plenty of true blue Catholic conservatives out there but universities? Haven't seen it yet.I think what I showed of the liberal "multicultural" page at Fordham (and that's not the only "liberal" clue there by the way) SHOULD be a clearcut demonstration of their liberal position, and as I said I'm puzzled that this isn't immediately recognized. Got a lot of Jeers for that, something I really think is just a statement of fact.People here roundly scorn and mock conservative positions, I mean all the time, including on the Humor thread, without seeming to recognize that they are representing the liberal position in doing so, all those positions listed on that page for instance. How come I know those are liberal positions and the liberals don't? Edited by Faith, : clarification

I got kicked out of EvC for a lesser offense than your one-word reply.And I don't understand what you guys are objecting to. Are you just disagreeing with my conservative views without bothering to make a case, or disagreeing with my characterization of liberalism or what? It's a complete enigma to me.