Coulter, tolerance, bigotry, religion, opinion and reality...and more

August 14, 11:00 AMDC Ethical Issues ExaminerLaura Harrison McBride

Previous Next

2 comments Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the DC Ethical Issues Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

  Goya's The Sleep of Reason (Wiki Commons)

Readers of my column yesterday, which introduced my observation concerning the fundamentalist “proof” of god after another “godless" diatribe by Ann Coulter, has gathered some interesting comments.

For one, I was called a narrow-minded bigot. Interesting. WordNet defines that as: “a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own.” Or her own, as the case may be. I have strong opinions, certainly. But if I were intolerant of opinions other than my own, I would not engage in public with those who hold different opinions. I would not respond to those who present refutational evidence. I would never change my opinion based on readers’ cogent arguments. In fact, I have done this on many occasions, including my beliefs about the use of the term civil marriage. And I modified my opinion of what the Church of Latter Day Saints was doing in California regarding gay marriage. I didn’t change my mind on that one, as I did with the civil marriage issue, initiated by commentary about the clergy issue for the inauguration, but I did come to see the other viewpoint.

As it happens, I'm happy for everyone to have a viewpoint. What I'm not happy about is those who, like Ms. Coulter, seem to think that a viewpoint consists of consigning those whose viewpoints one doesn't like to perdition. That’s not a viewpoint; it’s hateful provocation. Had Coulter said she could not agree with Mr. Ezekiel's stance (providing she had it right to begin with, which she did not), that's one thing. It's quite another to purposefully misconstrue another person's work, and then issue in public the statement that, if you had the chance, you would kill him. For is that not what a "death list" is? Please, listen to Coulter’s words, and get over the airy-fairy idea that because she nominally claims to be a Christian (I suppose, or whatever religion she claims), she is therefore just and good. No matter what she is, she is hateful and ignorant. And so is anyone who excuses her behavior, which is reprehensible from any viewpoint, religious or not. On that I doubt my mind could be changed. If you are going to place those you dislike for any reason on a “death list,” it speaks volumes about what you would do given half a chance.

Which, in turn, speaks volumes about why such people as Coulter behave themselves at all. Apparently, behaving is not born from a desire to do the right thing, but rather because they fear some sort of punishment. Clearly, if Coulter carried out the impetus behind her “death list,” she would go to jail. Perhaps she would be punished by her god, but of course, repentance and the fact that she is a “sinful” human to begin with might mitigate that, depending on how far one wants to go into literal interpretation of allegorical texts, and on her own belief system.

If one contends that Coulter’s powers of discernment are weak, and that’s why she flings such provocative statements into a culture already overloaded with barely sane individuals with hair-trigger personalities and easy access to deadly weapons, you will be unable to prove it. She is an attorney; she could not have passed the bar without a minimal grasp of the meaning of words and actions, and I would contend, a great grasp of the meaning of words and actions. So, the only reasonable conclusion is that she flings these irresponsible statements around like confetti because she gets a “pass” from her core constituency for saying aloud what they believe in their hearts, and she makes money.

Again, look at what a person actually does. I have actually changed my mind after offering my opinion and hearing out the other side, making the label bigot overkill. Opinionated? Certainly. That’s why I write columns. I expect disagreement, and if it makes sense, I will consider it and incorporate it in my own thinking. You could call me opinionated, and you would be correct. But if you call me a bigot, a look at my columns and my responses to comments over the past year would tell most people that it’s not true. Coulter doesn’t even hear the other side; she doesn’t shut up long enough. So if bigot is the epithet to be tossed around, that’s where it needs to go.

I also said I wasn’t writing about hypocrisy per se in yesterdays’ column, and that’s true. But is it not hypocrisy to pretend one is writing about a man’s professional conduct (Mr. Emanuel’s medical treatise), when what one is actually writing about is hatred of a person of another ethnic group? No, I cannot prove that. But it seems to me that the preponderance of racial and scatological epithets being flung at Mr. Obama, Mr. Emanuel and the entire administration, and the fever-pitch at which they are being flung, makes one at least wonder if the impetus is not health-care reform (or whatever the cause of the moment), but rather dismay that the white, male establishment has been breached. Ms. Coulter is a darling of the white male establishment because she performs the function of the scolding harridan, saying what the white male establishment wants to say but can’t if it wants to uphold its image of sanity. Ms. Palin is a darling of the white male establishment because she performs the role of chaste siren, obviously a role the white male establishment cannot fulfill, but desperately wants to possess. (Perhaps I should have prefaced the previous two sentences with “In my opinion,” but the entire column is my opinion, a fact nonetheless that very many readers who leave comments seem to miss.)

Opinions can be neither right nor wrong. Beliefs about such intangibles as god can be neither right nor wrong. If anyone thinks I believe otherwise, they are entitled to their beliefs. If you look at the evidence in my past columns, however, you will note that while my opinions are strong, my willingness to accept honest, thoughtful refutation is equally strong. My willingness to accept unthinking tautological dismissals is, however, nonexistent.

If you would like to offer evidence to refute what I believe to be true, offer it. I will consider it, perhaps respond, and if warranted, change my mind. I will probably, as in the past, offer that change of mind to readers.

If you wish to castigate me without saying why you think I am wrong and offering valid points, I will say what the Artistic Director of Virginia’s Barter Theatre has traditionally said to its audiences every night since the 1930s: “If you like us, talk about us. [Or in this case, make valid points.] If you don’t, just keep your mouth shut.”