Saturday, March 10, 2007

Al Mohler Denounces Ann Coulter's Use of Pejorative Term

"So . . . why would Ann Coulter use that word? And, even more troubling to me, why would any in her audience laugh? There is nothing remotely funny about that word in any context. It is meant to hurt when boys use it in the locker room, and it was meant to hurt when Ann Coulter used it when speaking to a conservative audience. It demeans homosexuals and should be banned from any acceptable discourse.

How can homosexuals think anything but the worst of a movement that would laugh at the use of this slur? How can we think any better of ourselves if we stand by and let it happen?"

- the entire post


Anonymous said...

Mohler's comments were solid. He stood his ground while denouncing her actions. He is strongly rooted in the diginity of image bearers. I appreciate his ability to stand outside of the box and see things clearly, calling what is, is and not getting sucked into sidebar arguments.

I wish more "conservative" thinkers did the same.

That said...Coulter was taken out of context by the media (Yes...she blew it!) but, she was telling jokes. Her claim of defense was calling Edwards a wuss, not a F*****

After being confronted, her sarcastic comments did not help her cause.

Why is she a leader? This is just sad. It really is unacceptable today to say such things, unl;ess you're a media whore seeking (craving) attention for self and career.

Talk about 'the ends justify the means' personal philosophy.

Shame on you Ms. have given Randi Rhoads more to whine about!

Steve K. said...

Mohler's statement against Coulter is all well and good, but his own statement supporting the use of genetic engineering to create a heterosexual race (wiping out all homosexuals) is equally as offensive. Coulter apologized for her failed attempt at a joke. Mohler should apologize as well. He's leading his flock down a very dangerous path with that one. Don't you agree, Stephen?

Stephen said...

hi steve,

i'd have to read mohler to make a studied response (this was the first I'd heard of that), but if he's wrong there then wouldn't we similarly have to express concern when folks desire similar physiological engineering to reconfigure their bodies in line with their sexual desires? and - if that's wrong as well - where does that leave us?

i do believe this is a complicated, complicated topic where our first recourse is to hear what Scripture says.