Ann Coulter (Is she hateful?)

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 continue to insist on being off-topic. but to set you straight.I am an unabashed liberal and proud of it. And I know it. So as always your argument is false on so many levels.Why is it that liberals use the term conservative as a descriptor of someones economic and social view, but people like Faith and Forever(conservatives and fundies) use the term liberal as an epithet and term of derision?

If calling Coulter a person full of hate is hateful, then how, precisely, should one describe someone full of hate? Without being inaccurate, obscure or weasel-worded, I mean.--Percy

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.

I thought that not being a not hateful, reactionary, homophobic right winger was exactly what made me a liberal. It's certainly why people who are hateful, reactionary, homophobic right wingers identify me as a liberal.

Maybe you really don't know what a conservative is.I also note that in the very same post to repeated material that show the Society of Jesus was created to help conserve the status-quo but then say you are uninterested in discussing the subject.But you also did not answer the questions and so I will repeat them.Are you now saying that today's Conservative supports Hate Speech?Are you saying that today's Conservatives support oppression, oppose religious orientation, oppose social justice?Are you saying that today's Conservatives oppose even exploring, talking, discussing those subjects?

Perhaps you can explain to us the difference between Christianity and Hedonism. For it sure looks, from what you just said, that the two are nearly identical.

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

Well I'm not surprised that you fear discussing the Reformation so let's look at your quote from the Fordam.From your message Message 68:

quote:

---

Here it is:

​

Welcome to the Office of Multicultural Affairs!

​

The Office of Multicultural Affairs (OMA) is a resource available to the Fordham University campus community. OMA upholds the University’s mission to honor and revere the dignity and uniqueness of each person, in keeping with the Jesuit and Catholic fundamentals of faith, hope and love. OMA fosters and promotes the formation of an inclusive campus culture and learning environment in which each member of the Fordham University family is welcomed and valued. OMA provides a variety of resources to help facilitate an engaged campus community that proactively explores topics of diversity, including race and ethnicity, gender, culture, sexual identity, socioeconomic status, religious orientation, ability, international concerns, social justice and oppression. Working collaboratively with student organizations, University departments, faculty, academic offices and others, OMA develops creative programs and projects designed to enhance competent intercultural interaction and engagement. Programs sponsored by the OMA includes the Sustained Dialogue Series, deeper dialogues, the Diversity Peer Leaders Program, and the LGBT and Ally Network of Support. Fordham University community members are encouraged to get involved and contact OMA for additional information on available multicultural programs and services.

---

Shall we step though it one line at a time?Beginning, the first sentence points out that "The Office of Multicultural Affairs (OMA) is a resource available to the Fordham University campus community." It's a resource that can be used.Do you understand that?

Hey mods - I know this is the Coffee House and all, but there was at some point a topic in this thread, and I'm fairly certain that is was not in fact related in any way to Jesuits or the Protestant Reformation or calling the Pope the Antichrist (we all know the current Pope is Emperor Palpatine, and he cannot be two fictional characters at once).

I do feel fortunate - do you feel fortunate that I responded to you? I think perhaps you should. After all, I spent considerably more time responding to you, than you did to me (that isn't a criticism, just a straight observation, I appreciate there are a variety of factors that explain this). I think we're at a suitable place to go on to discuss other things, should you so desire.If you don't want to go back and address any of the other things I said, perhaps you could point me at any online non conservative papers so that I could see if I can find an editorial and we can analyze for hate as per your Message 21. Maybe that would be a productive and interesting avenue to take.

Hi Modulous et al And one rather obvious factor is cognitive dissonance -- that the posts create such cognitive dissonance in foreveryoung that he can't stand to read them.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : ...

Kind of like the Jewish Agenda, to drink the blood of Christian infants? Or the Ghey Agenda, which seems to change a lot except for being Faaabulous most of the time?The Catholic Church is drying up and dying, Faith. What, 98% of married American Catholic women have used birth control? A Mortal Sin, according to the old guys in red robes?Don't be so silly. But welcome back, anyway.

They don't produce cognitive dissonance in me; they produce anger. I can't repeat the thoughts that go through my head after reading posts on here. There is lots of blood involved for sure. I get angry because the way you argue and debate on here is deceitful in the extreme and often hateful and mocking.It's the same kind of anger servicemen would feel in world war 2 while listening to tokyo rose. It is nothing but deceitful propaganda.Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.

Why do you have so much anger? You really should talk to someone about that. It ain't normal or healthy.
I can say very honestly that I NEVER have thoughts of violence toward anyone. Except maybe the guys that shot that girl in Pakistan.