"No, They Don't Understand! We Hate Liberal Atheists!"

The mysterious citizen journalist 2x4misc got into the (oddly blue) green room at CPAC and recorded this historic, pre-Faggotgate meeting between straw poll winner Mitt Romney and comedic spinster Ann Coulter. Romney apparatchiks Barbara Comstock and Jay Sekulow work to keep the camera at bay, but they fail to protect their wooden candidate from looking like an awkward fanboy.

The most interesting exchange is Coulter's defense of Romney's Mormonism (most probably how the media covers Romney's Mormonism).

COULTER: No, they don't understand! We hate liberal atheists! You can't get these sectarian wars going with us. We're all Christians.

ROMNEY: We're not Sunni and Shia here!

Iraq civil war humor - slays 'em every time. But seriously, this is evidence that Coulter doesn't actually go to church. I've been to Baptist Bible studies where the question of whether Catholicism is a cult was heatedly debated. Romney may be doing a good job of papering over his differences with evangelical Protestants, but the differences exist.

Comments

Warty | March 5, 2007, 12:51pm | #

Every Mormon I've ever met has been so nice that it kind of gives me the creeeps. I can't imagine how such a person could possibly be a successful politician.

Umbriel | March 5, 2007, 12:51pm | #

Depends on the sect, Dave. You're right about some Baptists (and check out Chick.com some time...), but there are plenty of Methodists and Episcopalians and such out there who seem to subscribe to the "one big ecumenical family" theory of Christianity.

SugarFree | March 5, 2007, 12:51pm | #

It's like the Crystal Pepsi debate all over again.

Anyway, where's the clip that shows them discussing how illegal immigrants are the real cause of global warming?

Grotius | March 5, 2007, 12:57pm | #

Our bible study periods spent some amount of time discussing the Mormon church as one of the "false teachings" that Peter warns about in Second Peter.

Tbone | March 5, 2007, 12:59pm | #

No Ann, we do understand. You hate liberal atheists. . . and Jews (except Lieberman), and Muslims, and Gays, and Christian Progressives, and Democrats, and Foreigners, and . . . (INSERT HERE) and anyone who doesn't fall in line with your neoconservative, evangelical, group think.

joe | March 5, 2007, 1:00pm | #

I agree with Warty. The 18-year-old Mormon "elders" who knocked on my door last December were so sweet I invited them inside and made them hot cocoa.

You know they don't let them go home for Christmas? That's just not right.

Grotius | March 5, 2007, 1:04pm | #

But conservative or libertarian atheists are alright?

FinFangFoom | March 5, 2007, 1:04pm | #

Mormonism is my favorite religion that I don't subscribe to. As far as I can tell, the only people who go to Hell ("the outer darkness") are people that were Mormons and then apostatize. So Hell is just an eternity with Neil LaBute, which admittedly sounds pretty bad. But everybody else goes to one layer of heaven or another, the better depending on how close one is to the divine truth. There is even one for all the sinners, non-believers, adulterers and what not, which is where I'd want to go since it sounds like all the fun people go there.

KipEsquire | March 5, 2007, 1:06pm | #

Very easy (obligatory?) to say in front of a camera. But behind a voting booth curtain in a primary? We'll see.

Meanwhile, let's not forget that the Southern Baptist Convention, the largest sect in Evangelical Christianity, has adopted a formal policy position that Mormonism is a cult.

Again: we'll see.

SugarFree | March 5, 2007, 1:08pm | #

It's all part of the new persecution complex that the Christian Right has ginned up. They are willing to accept the support of anyone that shares even a shred of their consensual delusion. This is what proves they are cynical opportunists.

The differences between the various sects and cults that fit under the loose umbrella called "Christianity" are supposed to be at each other's throats. If your path to heaven is the only way there, then you should fight tooth and nail to either convert or silence the opposition. They don't want competition in the marketplace of ideas, they seek only monopoly.

But now that the "values we all share are under assault" they decide they can play nice just long enough to fight the real enemy: People who can think for themselves.

John | March 5, 2007, 1:11pm | #

The people at CPAC deserve this for inviting Coulter is the first place. She is not serious person. She is a comedian. She got fired by National Review for God's sake. Her act is to say crazy and offensive and sometimes moderately humoress statements. Jesus, why doesn't CPAC invite Andrew Dice Clay for a discussion on immigration?

Plant Immigration Rights Supporter | March 5, 2007, 1:13pm | #

"But seriously, this is evidence that Coulter doesn't actually go to church."

Most Americans do not.

sean | March 5, 2007, 1:18pm | #

Is there a working definition of neoconservative? How does it differ from plain old conservative, and under which definition does Ann go?

I ask because it seems like neoconservative now means "really awful conservative" as opposed to what it used to mean: former democrats who became conservative, examples being Norman Podhortez, Bill Bennett, and Jeane Kirkpatrick.

dead_elvis | March 5, 2007, 1:20pm | #

You can't get these sectarian wars going with us. We're all Christians.

A *lot* of traditional minded protestants would disagree. My parents, lutherans, were squarely in the "they are not Christians" camp. They thought they were nice people and all, but nope, not considered the same religion.

I'm not making any value judgements here, just saying that Coulter is speaking for a lot of people that she can't speak for.

I also wonder, do they not hate conservative atheists?

FinFangFoom | March 5, 2007, 1:21pm | #

I think the impetus for Coulter's antics is the same one as Michael Moore's: $$$$$.

And Bill O'Reilly's, and Michelle Malkin's, and Sean Hannity's.

This is why conservative media gets so much attention and money. They are more entertaining. Unlike Al Franken, they probably don't believe a lot of what they are saying.

At least that's my guess.

Though I think Sean Hannity will actually come to believe fully in his positions once he's become a cyborg warrior standing alone against the Islamofascists and Appeasers.

http://www.accstudios.com/f/comicpreview_page_cover.htm

FinFangFoom | March 5, 2007, 1:23pm | #

I think "neoconservative" now means that once the party/president has done something you support it no matter what.

Dave B. | March 5, 2007, 1:24pm | #

I also wonder, do they not hate conservative atheists?

They would never admit in public that such a chimera exists.

Conservative4LIFE | March 5, 2007, 1:27pm | #

Every Mormon I've ever met has been so nice that it kind of gives me the creeeps.

You must not be a racial minority.

highnumber | March 5, 2007, 1:30pm | #

I've known Mormons who weren't "creepy nice." They were bad, drug-taking Mormons to be sure, but they never creeped me out.
I was friends with a brother & sister whose parents had converted to Mormonism years before. I knew them when the brother left for his two year mission. He was a pot smoker and a drinker when he left. He came back a teetotaler. That lasted about two weeks.
They were both very nice but never creepy.

Grotius | March 5, 2007, 1:31pm | #

Dave B.,

And some conservative atheists may not admit to being one in public. Religion equals social order after all. ;)

Bazil | March 5, 2007, 1:33pm | #

I long for the day when every politician doesn't have to pass the litmus test of religiosity before getting prodded along the political cattle line. All I can say is if you don't see the cosmic inconsistencies within religion that clearly show it's manmade and particularly undivine you probably aren't as sharp as you think you are.

A Rational Thinker | March 5, 2007, 1:34pm | #

"I also wonder, do they not hate conservative atheists?"

I WAS one before I became libertarian. So, if the conservatives want to alienate more people like me, let them go ahead and continue this kind of talk. I KNOW, I was not the only one.

FinFangFoom | March 5, 2007, 1:35pm | #

Yeah, same here, as conservative atheist. However, I don't know if I left the Republican party or if it left me. Though being pro-drug legalization is of more recent vintage.

A Rational Thinker | March 5, 2007, 1:37pm | #

"Is there a working definition of neoconservative? How does it differ from plain old conservative, and under which definition does Ann go?"

Neo is a prefix that means "new." The original definition of a neoconservative was a conservative who was once liberal, thus "newly conservative" or "neoconservative." It seems to have lost much of its original meaning.

joe | March 5, 2007, 1:38pm | #

sean,

A neoconservative is someone who combines militant socialists' commitment to socially engineering a better world through government activism with the conservatives' beliefs about what that better world would look like.

On welfare reform, they supported revising the welfare state to better indoctrinate recipients in traditionalist and capitalist values. On foreign policy, they supported using the American military to tear down not just the Iraqi state, but the Iraqi political culture, and rebuild them from the ground up, in the neoconservatives' own image.

TrickyVic | March 5, 2007, 1:39pm | #

"""I think the impetus for Coulter's antics is the same one as Michael Moore's: $$$$$. """

I agree. Her last book didn't do that well and she needs controversy to keep her in the spotlight. That single act ship of her's is sinking and she knows it.

sean | March 5, 2007, 1:39pm | #

I understand the original meaning and I agree that it has lost most if not all of its original meaning, so I'm wondering if there is a new definition or if it is just a slur now.

joe | March 5, 2007, 1:40pm | #

It isn't just that they converted from another ideology. Whittaker Chambers, for example, wasn't a neoconservative, just a conservative.

Anita Dickens-Hyde | March 5, 2007, 1:43pm | #

Governor Romney is seriously tone-deaf. This harridan gave him a golden opportunity to score a "Sister Souljah" moment, and the doofus didn't take advantage of it.

Perhaps Ms. Coulter was just having a bad day, what with the house having fallen on her sister.

Rachel | March 5, 2007, 1:47pm | #

I have mormons in my extended family and they all definitely fall into the creepy nice category. On the question of whether they hate conservative atheists as well, I think they will probably just ask how I can come to my conclusions without the moral order their god imposes for them. That is always how I have been treated when coming out of the closet as not believing in god.

Number 6 | March 5, 2007, 1:47pm | #

From my limited experience, the trouble with Mormons is this: their beliefs call for mockery, but Mormons are so nice that making fun of their mythology just seems mean-spirited.

Brian24 | March 5, 2007, 1:49pm | #

Back when I was in college (~1990), my US Foreign Policy professor used the phrase "neoconservative" to differentiate between the Nixonian "realpolitik" conservative foreign policy and the Reaganite "shining city on a hill" foreign policy. He was a big Reagan supporter.

As it happens, many of the neoconservatives were disaffected Democrats (like Reagan). But that's not what the "neo-" meant; it signified a new conservatISM, not that these people were new conservatives (most of them had been conservatives for decades anyway).

FinFangFoom | March 5, 2007, 1:49pm | #

For me, as an atheist, Mormonism passes the test of having beliefs just as weird as Catholicism, Judaism, and most other religions and sects.

Ken | March 5, 2007, 1:56pm | #

Ceheck out the South Park episode on Mormons, it's the best explaination ever!

sean | March 5, 2007, 2:03pm | #

The South Park mormonism episode is brilliant. Also in South Park heaven, Mormons are the only ones who make the grade. I read an interview with Trey and the other guy in which they said Mormons are too nice to really dislike, so that's why they are the ones in heaven.

and thanks for the neo-conservative defintions

Grotius | March 5, 2007, 2:09pm | #

Oh, and just to get this out of the way, whatever else he may have been (brilliant being one of those things), Leo Strauss was not a neo-conservative.

A Rational Thinker | March 5, 2007, 2:10pm | #

Kenny! Your Alive!!

A Rational Thinker | March 5, 2007, 2:11pm | #

I love the fact that the Mormons are the Only ones who make the grade in Heaven and yet God is a Budhist. Truly wonderfull.

Grotius | March 5, 2007, 2:15pm | #

A Rational Thinker,

Does that mean that there is no God in the South Park universe, since the Buddha never claimed to be God? Indeed, if I recall correctly, he denied such.

(Note that I've never seen the episode in question. Or at the very least I can't remember seeing it.)

sean | March 5, 2007, 2:20pm | #

Grotius, if I recall correctly, the South Park God thought that the buddhists made the most sense, but he liked the mormons better. BTW, in South Park, God is a rodent like creature who seems to be annoyed by creation more than anything else.

Timothy | March 5, 2007, 2:22pm | #

Number 6 | March 5, 2007, 1:47pm | #
From my limited experience, the trouble with Mormons is this: their beliefs call for mockery, but Mormons are so nice that making fun of their mythology just seems mean-spirited.

If only they'd be as evil and mean as Scientologists, I wouldn't feel as bad going on about Kolob and becoming my own personal Jesus.

norbizness | March 5, 2007, 2:27pm | #

Revised gospel: "You can totally serve two masters--- hell, maybe even three! God, Mammon, the President... whatever, dude!"

Eric the .5b | March 5, 2007, 2:31pm | #

If only they'd be as evil and mean as Scientologists, I wouldn't feel as bad going on about Kolob and becoming my own personal Jesus.

You will deliver? You are a forgiver?

Jon H | March 5, 2007, 2:34pm | #

I can't help thinking of Romney as Sam Malone from Cheers.

And given Romney's decision to make gay folks his political sacrificial goat, demeaning and diminishing millions of people, it's really easy to make fun of *his* beliefs. For instance, by calling him Captain Underpants in reference to his sacred underthings. I'm guessing there are gay couples who consider their loved ones considerably more important than some underwear.

A Rational Person | March 5, 2007, 2:36pm | #

"Does that mean that there is no God in the South Park universe, since the Buddha never claimed to be God? Indeed, if I recall correctly, he denied such."

Groitus, “Buddha” is a title, not a single individual but you are right that none of the Buddha’s ever claimed to be a deity. Hmm, the god in question looked sort of like a humanoid rodent and the same episode also had a Satan (the same one from the movie). I do not know if Parker or Stone believe in God but I would not say that there is no god in the South Park Universe, after all Jesus (who in Trinitarian theology IS God) is a semi-regular. There was also a very funny episode with the “Super-Best Friends” that had all of the worlds major prophets (including Joseph Smith) working together

Timothy | March 5, 2007, 2:36pm | #

If you put me to the test. That is, with the things on your chest you need to confess.

Eric the .5b | March 5, 2007, 2:37pm | #

And given Romney's decision to make gay folks his political sacrificial goat, demeaning and diminishing millions of people, it's really easy to make fun of *his* beliefs.

I just don't feel the need to mock all Mormons or all Baptists or all Catholics just because of the homophobes among them.

Eric the .5b | March 5, 2007, 2:37pm | #

Alright, Timothy. I'll pick up the receiver - make me a believer.

Timothy | March 5, 2007, 2:42pm | #

Reach out and touch faith, Eric.

Grotius | March 5, 2007, 2:49pm | #

A Rational Person,

Yeah, just like Christ wasn't part of Jesus' real name. It was a title given to him after his death.


As I recall, in one South Park episode Jesus cannot perform miracles (he has to fake them).

Now, keep in mind that a chief part of Jesus' ministry was the working of miracles (this was the case for a lot of prophets during his time). I don't know if the creators of SP know this, but if they do, well, stripping Jesus of his powers makes him a far less imposing figure.

David Ross | March 5, 2007, 2:55pm | #

Grotius: It seems ironical, as Captain Reynolds might say, that the "false teachings" which "Second Peter" warns about almost certainly include "Second Peter" itself.

Grotius | March 5, 2007, 2:57pm | #

David Ross,

Well, what, half of what is attriubted to Paul (that is "canonical") he likely didn't write? Not to mention non-canonical texts attributed to Paul.

Jon H | March 5, 2007, 3:23pm | #

"I don't know if the creators of SP know this, but if they do, well, stripping Jesus of his powers makes him a far less imposing figure"

As if making Jesus out of construction paper doesn't.

A Rational Person | March 5, 2007, 3:26pm | #

I just noticed that Microsoft Word (which I often use to compose and then paste into H& R), when I typed "Buddhas" called it a misspelling and I without thinking accepted the correction (Buddha's). This goes to show how misunderstood that concept is in the United States.

A Rational Person | March 5, 2007, 3:28pm | #

"As if making Jesus out of construction paper doesn't."

So even back in Sunday School, I was mocking him without knowing it!

bubba | March 5, 2007, 3:29pm | #

How is this not similar to Sunni and Shia? Once the liberal atheists are defeated, Catholic will turn on Mormon will turn on Baptist.

Well, maybe everyone can agree to first kill the Mormons.

J Goldern Rockwell | March 5, 2007, 3:44pm | #

Conservative4LIFE wrote:

">Every Mormon I've ever met has been so nice that it kind of gives me the creeeps.

You must not be a racial minority."

_I_ am a racial minority. I am also a Mormon, and have been for over 30 years.

The only problem that this combination has ever caused comes from "experts" like you.

Sir | March 5, 2007, 3:49pm | #

ARP - Just as the title "Christ" is conventionally understood to refer to Jesus, so (mutatis muntandis) the title "Buddha" conventionally designates the historical man Gautama.

But it's always good to inform/remind people that these are ranks, not surnames.

Buddha | March 5, 2007, 4:00pm | #

I'm only a title? Why couldn't my parents have told me as much? Would have saved me a lot of trouble.

Buddha | March 5, 2007, 4:06pm | #

Now the funny thing is that in most Buddhist cultures the average person ignores my essential teachings entirely and treats me exactly the way theists treat their god, praying for help on university entrance exams, praying for health, wealth, and happiness, and asking for forgiveness of sins.

A Rational Person | March 5, 2007, 4:12pm | #

"Just as the title "Christ" is conventionally understood to refer to Jesus, so (mutatis muntandis) the title "Buddha" conventionally designates the historical man Gautama."

That is what most non-Buddhists in the United States assume but it is an inaccurate assumption. There are at least 28 people who have held the title Buddha in the past and many believe that, some day, another person will be able to hold that title.
Here is the list of the 28 Buddhas:

1 Tahakara
2 Medhakara
3 Sarakara
4 Dīpakara
5 Koañña
6 agala
7 Sumana
8 Revata
9 Sobhita
10 Anomadassi
11 Paduma
12 Nārada
13 Padmottara
14 Sumedha
15 Sujāta
16 Piyadassi
17 Atthadassi
18 Dhammadassi
19 Siddhatta
20 Tissa
21 Phussa
22 Vipaśyin
23 Viśvabhu
24 Sikhi
25 Krakucchanda
26 Kanakamuni
27 Kassapa
28 Gautama (AKA Gotama)

Grotius | March 5, 2007, 4:18pm | #

Jon H,

Clever. :)

He of the Infinte Patience | March 5, 2007, 4:21pm | #

Yes, my child. And nothing in what you have so nobly composed contradicts what I have said.

"And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou? And he confessed, and denied not; but confessed, I am not the Christ." - The Gospel According to John 1:19-20

Mutatis mutandis, vade in pacem.

Grotius | March 5, 2007, 4:23pm | #

Anyway, there were lots and lots of folks could claim the title christ (depending on your view of their claims). I'm pretty sure that Apollonius of Tiana was given the title (or something like it) for instance.

Buddha | March 5, 2007, 4:26pm | #

Rational,
It's a very U.S. Buddhist perception, which is technically correct. However, it's not just non-Buddhists in the U.S. who think that Buddha only refers to Gautama, most Buddhists in Buddhist cultures, when they refer to the Buddha, are only referring to number 28 as well; many of those are not aware of the other 27 as well, or if they are, don't quite put them on an equal footing with 28.

Buddha | March 5, 2007, 4:35pm | #

Actually, there are more than 28 if you go by some sources. For example, there are the Tibetan 'Buddhas' such as Milarepa, Marpa, etc. Any 'enlightened' being can be given the title of a 'Buddha' yet, in the vernacular, in the East, when they refer to the Buddha, they usually mean me, er, Gautama.

But since this is originally about Ann Coulter, I hate to admit it, but she could also be a Buddha. Actually, she is one, but just is not aware of her own true nature, prefering to dissemble in the guise of a cackling human cockroach.

grumpy realist | March 5, 2007, 4:44pm | #

Ann Coulter==reincarnation of Kafka?

de stijl | March 5, 2007, 4:46pm | #

Ann Coulter is just shilling for Big Larynx.

Jim Walsh | March 5, 2007, 4:49pm | #

Romney is toast; Coulter is the kiss of death for any politico who wants to remain relevant. But that's not what I came to talk about:

I was taught in my Sunday catechism class (the Catholic version of Sunday school) that it was un-Christian to "hate" anyone, even (gasp) liberal atheists. We should love all of our non-believing bretheren (while praying that they come around to our Way).

Further indication that Coulter (and Romney) are talking out of their asses.

Devout | March 5, 2007, 4:52pm | #

are talking out of their asses

Or ironically.

Think the best of everyone.

brotherben | March 5, 2007, 5:00pm | #

Why can't we all just be right? Isn't that the epitome of faith?

brotherben | March 5, 2007, 5:06pm | #

does an athiestbelieve they have infinite knowledge that no being with infinite knowledge exists?

highnumber | March 5, 2007, 5:07pm | #

There are way more than 28 Buddhas:

Smiling Buddha
Rude Buddha
Misguided Buddha
Laughing Buddha
There's more, but Windows is acting funny, so I think I may have to re-buddha my compuddha.
If you're interested, many of these "lesser" Buddhas can be found hanging out at the The Funky Buddha Lounge.

I am getting way too good at avoiding work when I am at my desk.
Thank you for indulging me.

A Rational Person | March 5, 2007, 5:18pm | #

“For example, there are the Tibetan 'Buddhas' such as Milarepa, Marpa, etc. Any 'enlightened' being can be given the title of a 'Buddha'”

Which is why I said at least 28.

“But since this is originally about Ann Coulter, I hate to admit it, but she could also be a Buddha.”

Yes, those of the New Kadampa Tradition would say that, yes, she could be a Buddha who appeared to teach a lesson about patience, compassion or some other virtue by being so irritating and uncivil that one must practice one’s own virtues to deal with that person. In fact, that arrogant driver who cut you off and gave you the finger on your way to work this morning might be a Buddha who appeared to teach you lesson that you needed at that moment in time to help you on your path to enlightenment. So, yes, it is possible that Ann Coulter arrived at this moment in time to help us practice our lessons so that we also may achieve enlightenment.

Jon H | March 5, 2007, 5:32pm | #

Q. Does Ann Coulter have Buddha-nature?

A. Mu.

Wikipedia | March 5, 2007, 5:37pm | #

Mu (negative) (無), a Japanese word important in Zen koan practice

Wikipedia | March 5, 2007, 5:42pm | #

Mu (Japanese/Korean), Wu (Chinese traditional: 無, simplified: 无 pinyin: wú), and Vô (in Vietnamese) is a word which can be roughly translated as "none" or "without". While typically used as a prefix to imply the absence of something (e.g., 無線 musen for "wireless"), it is more famously used as a response to certain koans and other questions in Zen Buddhism, intending to indicate that the question itself was wrong.

The Mu koan is as follows: A monk asked Zen master Zhaozhou, a Chinese Zen Master (in Japanese, Jōshū): "Has a dog Buddha-nature or not?", Zhaozhou answered: "Wú" (in Japanese, Mu).

Some earlier Buddhist thinkers had maintained that creatures such as dogs did have the Buddha-nature; others, that they did not. Therefore, to answer "no" is to deny their wisdom, whereas to say "yes" would appear to blindly follow their teachings. Zhaozhou's answer has subsequently been used by generations of zen students as their initiation into the zen experience.

Jon H | March 5, 2007, 5:42pm | #

Someone ought to create a new Usenet group to go along with alt.buddha.short.fat.guy : alt.buddha.tall.thin.harpy

de stijl | March 5, 2007, 5:49pm | #

Can I rub her Adam's apple for good luck?

sneering buddha | March 5, 2007, 6:00pm | #

it is possible that trolls arrive at this moment in time to help us practice our lessons so that we also may achieve enlightenment

brotherben | March 5, 2007, 6:00pm | #

I commented earlier in another thread that I would like to see her in Penthouse. Then I saw the adams apple comments and looked for her on tv and the web...I want at this time to officially repent of my wickedness and withdraw my request for nakey pics

um.....EWWWW

Philosophy begins with blundering | March 5, 2007, 6:02pm | #

Is it possible that they didn't? (Serious question for the buddhaphiles.)

A Rational Person | March 5, 2007, 6:08pm | #

"Is it possible that they didn't?"

You mean is it possible the Buddhas did not arrive to help us? Sure, it is possible. The point is that in the New Kadampa Tradition you do not know for certain who may be or may not be a Buddha so you must treat all with respect and love. This does not mean you have be be stupidly pacifistic (though an unfortunate number of Buddhists take that as the meaning) it means that, whatever your actions toward someone (even if it is killing that person) it must be done out of love, not anger.

So crucify me | March 5, 2007, 6:24pm | #

H&R could use some of your Buddhism, then.

Ann | March 5, 2007, 6:24pm | #

I was going to talk about Mit Romney, but it turns out you have to go to bible class if you say the word "Mormon."

Jon H | March 5, 2007, 6:25pm | #

"I want at this time to officially repent of my wickedness and withdraw my request for nakey pics"

She's waiting for 'washboard ribs' to become fashionable.

Graphite | March 5, 2007, 6:25pm | #

Why can't we all just be right? Isn't that the epitome of faith?

Yeah, basically. It's why I'd rather not have someone, say, operate an airplane according to faith, and it's why I don't see why faith should be given some kind of privilege (or, in fact, any consideration whatsoever) in the realms of metaphysics, ethics, and spirituality.

Graphite | March 5, 2007, 6:27pm | #

I think Coulter spawned the fad on FARK of referring to women who at first glance seem attractive, but on closer inspection are revealed to have repulsive "sharp knees."

Newton | March 5, 2007, 6:29pm | #

Everyone who operates an airplane operates it acoording to faith.

Plant Immigration Rights Supporter | March 5, 2007, 6:33pm | #

Once you find the Sir Issac Newton, kill the Sir Issac Newton.

Graphite | March 5, 2007, 6:37pm | #

Everyone who operates an airplane operates it acoording to faith.

No, just the ones who neglect to perform a preflight check and practice emergency procedures.

Shem | March 5, 2007, 6:49pm | #

For example, there are the Tibetan 'Buddhas' such as Milarepa, Marpa, etc.

Don't forget about Maitreya, my personal favorite resident of Tusita Heaven.

Someone Else | March 5, 2007, 6:57pm | #

Shem, or Tarra.

J Golden Rockwell | March 5, 2007, 7:08pm | #

I much prefer to practice emergency-AVOIDANCE maneuvers.

A Rational Person | March 5, 2007, 7:38pm | #

"I much prefer to practice emergency-AVOIDANCE maneuvers."

Agreed, an important part of wisdom and therefore an important part of enlightenment.

brotherben | March 5, 2007, 8:02pm | #

Are wisdom and enlightenment different?

Akira MacKenzie | March 5, 2007, 8:08pm | #

Ann Coulter is just shilling for Big Larynx.

Wha? I thought Dr. Girlfriend was a brunette.

A Rational Person | March 5, 2007, 8:12pm | #

"Are wisdom and enlightenment different?"

Mu 無

pluck | March 5, 2007, 9:00pm | #

It might be the other way around. Under their Buddha guise, lurks their real nature - Ann Coulter.

Do dogs have Ann Coulter nature? Well, a few in my neigbhorhood do, or appear to. Sometimes they are calm, obedient, and gentle, especially towards their conservative masters. But mention the word 'liberal' to them and they turn rabid.

Hidden Quicksand | March 5, 2007, 10:35pm | #

Putting one foot in front of the other operates according to faith.

Rooster | March 5, 2007, 10:39pm | #

Putting one foot in front of the other operates according to faith.

That the sun will rise tomorrow operates according to faith.

Antarctic Penguin | March 5, 2007, 10:40pm | #

"Putting one foot in front of the other operates according to faith."

Not as such, the alternative is standing still which also has its risks. You make calculated risks every day. This is not the same thing as "faith." I know I might fall through thin ice or drown, but if I do not hunt for food I starve.

Your no-fly zone | March 5, 2007, 10:59pm | #

standing still which also has its risks

Does that make walking unfaithful or rather show standing to be also faith-based? Anyway, standing indefinitely seems impractical, even for one of your species.

peterh | March 5, 2007, 11:42pm | #

“Putting one foot in front of the other operates according to faith.”

Actually, it’s just a motor skill….but, to continue to do so, according to faith…..puts you squarely in the lemming class…..one needs to “learn” when not to take that next step…..

Don | March 6, 2007, 12:10am | #

I loved the way Mitt's handlers made sure there were no pictures of him standing alone with Ann.

Dave2 | March 6, 2007, 1:39am | #

brotherben: does an athiestbelieve they have infinite knowledge that no being with infinite knowledge exists?

No, most atheists simply don't take God's existence very seriously. Some atheists think the very concept of God is incoherent. Others think there are good arguments against God's existence. None of this requires omniscience, no more than any other reasoned opinion on any other philosophical issue.

manaen | March 6, 2007, 3:58pm | #

RE:
.
"Conservative4LIFE | March 5, 2007, 1:27pm | #
.
Every Mormon I've ever met has been so nice that it kind of gives me the creeeps.
.
You must not be a racial minority."
.
If this comment means that the LDS Church does not welcome non-white people, how do we explain that the Church's growth in 2006 was fastest in Africa (7.5%) and in Mexico (3.5%)? Wouldn't the Church seek to suppress, not accelerate, growth in these areas? See http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=8f75aa083aef0110VgnVCM100000176f620aRCRD
.
Try these links for examples in the USA:
.
Growth and new 5-story church in Harlem:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/02/nyregion/02mormon.html?ex=1173330000&en=e9a4a0c25cddc1a8&ei=5070
.
General website:
http://www.blacklds.org/
.
Gladys Knight - LDS:
http://www.suvchoir.org/
.
Sam Warren (of "The Drifters") - LDS:
http://www.ldsmag.com/people/060224warren.html
.
Eldredge Cleaver - LDS:
http://www.ldsfilm.com/movies/Panther.html

manaen | March 6, 2007, 10:51pm | #

... and speaking personally, if white LDS dislike "racial minorities"/non-whites, why did my (white) niece in Utah and my cousin in California adopt black children into our family?