Christian Party Chick Blathers Heretical Rubbish

Only, funny thing, this sort of lie and falsehood will never be trapped and exposed by the vigilant Inquisitors of the Church Militant who currently dominate discourse in the blogosphere:

“God said rape the planet – it’s yours. That’s our job: drilling, mining and stripping. Sweaters are the anti-Biblical view. Big gas-guzzling cars with phones and CD players and wet bars – that’s the Biblical view.”

That is Ann Coulter, theologian. In another context she said ”God gave us the earth. We have dominion over the plants, the animals, the trees. God said, ‘Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It’s yours.’”

Such a claim is, of course, every bit as false as the claim that “Abortion is a blessing and abortionists are doing holy work“. But since it’s the right sort of heresy, this particular flake spouting idiocy gets a pass in the swirling vortex of highly selective factionalism that passes for orthodoxy in Faithful Conservative Catholic discourse.

  • Scott

    I have yet to meet any conservative who would agree with Coultrer’s ludicrus statement.

    • ivan_the_mad

      I’ve yet to meet any either. But those who echo that statement in other words or an earlier stage … plenty. Being a conservative with friends and relations who are largely Republican, I think I’ve got a decent sample size. Consider those who dismiss any appeal to more environmentally-minded approaches to drilling or coal as economically inefficient or “Green crap”. It’s walking down the same road, and for Catholics ignoring the same Church teachings (e.g., the fourth chapter of Caritas in Veritate).

    • Mark Gordon

      She’s sold 3 million books and is routinely camped out at the top of the NY Times bestseller list. Someone agrees with her.

    • Mark Shea

      I have yet to hear any conservative voices in media who challenge her statements. The usual strategy is to chuckle and pass over such things in silence.

  • Dan C

    Ann Coulter is useful for conservatives to say things theynwantnand draw fire. She can be the Id of the Right and everyone else, who the say the wishy washy, “well, I can understand, blah, blah , blah…” manages to intellectualize and justify her point of view with pretty words.

    Ann Coulter and the groups who pay her to say such things are deeply in error. Sinfully so. As well as her supporters.

    • Andy, Bad Person

      What a spectacularly unfair thing to say. Ann Coulter is like a “shock jock,” as we used to call those radio personalities who used to say outrageous things just to get attention. She’s the Howard Stern of right-wing political discourse.

      To say that conservatives all agree with her statements is ridiculous and unfounded.

      • Bob

        I’m not sure that Dan said that conservatives all agree with her statements.
        But it certainly IS true that virtually everyone who agrees with her statements are conservatives, or at least think they are.

        • ivan_the_mad

          “or at least think they are” That clause is key.

  • Rosemarie

    +J.M.J+

    “The world is not something indifferent, raw material to be utilized simply as we see fit. Rather, it is part of God’s good plan, in which all of us are called to be sons and daughters in the one Son of God, Jesus Christ”
    - Pope Benedict XVI, Sacramentum Caritatis

    “Be praised, my Lord, through our sister mother earth, who sustains and governs us, producing varied fruits, multi-colored flowers and herbs. ”

    Saint Francis of Assisi, patron saint of ecology, pray for her.

    • Rosemarie

      +J.M.J+

      >>>”God said, ‘Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It’s yours.”

      Where did God allegedly say this? It’s true that He gave humankind “dominion” over the earth, but we are in turn under His dominion so we can’t simply do with His creation whatever we please. Our dominion over the earth is one of stewardship under the Creator, to Whom the earth still belongs:

      “The heavens, even the highest heavens, belong to the LORD, your God, as well as the earth and everything on it.” – Deuteronomy 10:14

      “The earth is the LORD’s and all it holds, the world and those who dwell in it.” – Psalm 24:1

      “Yours are the heavens, yours the earth; you founded the world and everything in it.” – Psalm 89:12

      I can’t find anyplace in Sacred Scripture where God says, “Rape the earth.” It does indicate that God will punish those who “destroy the earth” (Revelation 11:18), though I’m not clear on whether that has to do with environmental damage. I did find this passage, though, which I think is relevant to Coulter’s remarks:

      “Every word of God is tested; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Add nothing to his words, lest he reprove you, and you be exposed as a deceiver.” – Proverbs 30:5-6

      • The Deuce

        It’s true that He gave humankind “dominion” over the earth, but we are in turn under His dominion so we can’t simply do with His creation whatever we please. Our dominion over the earth is one of stewardship under the Creator, to Whom the earth still belongs

        Exactly. And our dominion over the earth is supposed to reflect his dominion over all creation, including ourselves. Is that what Coulter thinks God’s relationship to us is? That he rapes and exploits us with no concern to our well-being, as she is recommending that we do with Creation?

        • Rosemarie

          +J.M.J+

          Maybe she thinks dominion necessarily involves violent ravaging? Does she have no concept of benign authority and care-taking? She seems painfully uninformed about proper stewardship of creation. One more example of why political talking heads shouldn’t do theology.

  • Jacob

    Before we go off the rails pointing out other people’s flaws, how does one take a balanced approach to the issue of our stewardship of the earth. In other words, how do we distinguish between using the earth in a resonsible vs. an irresponsible way? Is the extraction of oil and other mineral resources (metals, etc) wrong? Is agriculture utilizing fertilizer derived from natural gas wrong? Is there any guidance from the church that can help us judge?

    • http://coalitionforclarity.blogspot.com/ Robert King

      The guidance is the same as it ever has been, for any human work or activity: prudence, justice, temperance, courage, and above all charity.

      That is, it is neither wrong nor compulsory to extract oil from the earth. It is compulsory to do good, whether or not we use oil to do so. It is wrong to do deliberate harm to others, whether or not we use oil to do so.

      There are those who argue that our very means of extracting oil, or at least the rate at which we do so, is harmful. There are those who argue that modern fertilizers are inherently harmful. Not knowing the details of the arguments, I can’t judge their merits; but if they are true then it follows that we should not use those means of extracting oil or fertilizing crops.

      At the risk of derailing the conversation, this holds true also for guns or for welfare programs: all these things are given to us to use for the common good; if they are used for evil, or if we discover that we cannot use them without committing evil in the process, then we need to find another way to use them or give them up entirely. The only requirement is that we do good; there is no requirement to use some particular tool or resource to do good.

      Prudence is the virtue of doing as much good as one is able to, without ever falling into doing evil.

    • Mark Shea

      Of course using the goods of the earth justly is not wrong, just as sex is not wrong. But rape is wrong. This is not complicated.

  • Jacob

    I guess I should reframe it – do we judge based on how our actions affect other people (by the criteria you say), or do we give attribute some inherent dignity to the rest of the earth; plants, animals, minerals and all?

    • Rosemarie

      +J.M.J+

      I don’t know whether “dignity” is the right word here, but there are degrees in how we treat creation. For example, an animal should be treated differently than a plant or inanimate object, even as humans must be treated better than animals. This is why, though we *can* use animals we are supposed to do so humanely, not cruelly inflicting needless pain on them.

      Stewardship of creation would involve not taking more than we need and replacing what we take. For instance, if we cut down trees for our needs, plant new ones in their place so the land is not left barren and ravaged. This is also common sense, since future generations can then use some of those trees later on.

      If something is highly damaging to the environment, it should not be done. Less damaging methods should be sought instead. It is profoundly foolish to pollute the water we all drink, the air we all breathe, and the land that provides our food. If we poison the earth we poison ourselves. This should be a matter of simple common sense.

      • Jacob

        More or less my way of thinking; these things primarily are about temperance in how we consume resources and wisdom in not depleting them. These are obligations on us, not rights given to nature. How then do we respond to the idea that certain sorts of ecosystem should be preserved (rainforest, “old growth” forests, wetlands) and other sorts we can do with what we please (grassland, desert)? Some sorts of animals should not be harmed (dolphins) and other sorts can be killed as vermin (raccoons). It seems many people do believe in the inherent dignity and rights of certain parts of creation; as a result Brazilian farmers are castigated by American celebrity activists when they want to plant over a rain forest.
        I’m not against preservation by the way, I’m just trying to come up with a coherent framework for how to judge these issues.

        • Rosemarie

          +J.M.J+

          We really shouldn’t “do with what we please” with grasslands or desert either, since they have their own inhabitants. Some of the concern over losing rainforests is that they may contain yet-to-be-discovered plants with medicinal properties that can benefit the human race. Again, preserving the environment may also be the best thing for humanity in the end. It’s all a matter of balance and restraint rather than heedless exploitation and destruction.

          I guess we basically like dolphins more than raccoons. Endangered species should be protected, of course, though there’s nothing wrong with small-scale extermination of troublesome vermin in a certain location. Wholesale killing over large areas over a long period of time, OTOH, can lead to extinction and should be avoided. As for Brazilian farmers, I guess the better approach is to give them economic incentives to keep the rainforests in place, for instance by selling products grown there.

  • Subsistent

    Notice that Mr. Shea did not assert that “the vigilant Inquisitors of the Church Militant” agreed with Ms. Coulter; only that they gave her “a pass” by not calling her out on her bombast. BTW, altho Ms. Coulter is a Christian, is she a Catholic? If not, the greater deficiency is on Catholics who give her a pass than on her herself, seems to me.

    • http://www.rosariesforlife.com Dave

      Maybe they gave her a pass because they consider what she says ridiculous and worthy of no attention? That’s typically my response to Coulter, at any rate, and I’d consider myself “conservative” though I’m increasingly finding the liberal/conservative divide obsolete.

    • Dave Pawlak

      Raised Catholic, is now some sort of conservative Presbyterian.

  • http://davidgriffey.blogspot.com/ Dave G.

    The strange thing is, I’ve heard no condemnations of these statements from the Left either. At least no condemnations yet from the media side of things. Maybe they just haven’t heard. Saying outlandish things in today’s debate is sort of blending in after all. Maybe there’s just no more room for folks to get upset about this level of discourse from any position.

  • Deacon Nathan Allen

    Anyone who uses the words “conservative” — or “liberal”, for that matter — in the context of American political discourse ought to be asked what exactly they mean by that word. Most of what is called “conservatism” these days has nothing whatever to do with the great American conservative tradition one finds set forth with clarity in the writings of scholars like Russell Kirk, for example. Ronald Reagan could not get the nomination of today’s GOP: he was “soft on terror” because he thought terrorists should be tried in federal court like common criminals and not have their cause dignified by treating them as enemy combatants, he was soft on torture because he signed the UN Convention Against Torture and called it an abhorent practice that had to be stamped out, and he was soft on immigration because he not only signed an amnesty bill into law but campaigned on the issue in a year (1984) when he was cruising to reelection and didn’t have to campaign on anything controversial. “This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.”

    I find myself asking what exactly today’s self-styled “conservatives” are interested in conserving!

    • Beccolina

      I’m pretty sure that when I describe myself as a conservative, my definition is very different than Ann Coulters. Dear Ms. Coulter, please stop trying to help.

      • Andy, Bad Person

        I don’t think she is trying to help. She’s trying to sell books, and any ounce of publicity she can get from outrageous statements is a tick in her book sales.

        One of these days I’m going to wake up and Coulter and Limbaugh are going to be out there saying, “Just kidding, everybody! I’ve been voting liberal all along! Thanks for the money, chumps!”

        Then again, I also wake up thinking the whole world is playing a big joke on me and that no, no one really like Quentin Tarantino movies. They’ve been pretending just to mess with me.

        • Jmac

          What a ridiculous notion. Now take your pill and go back to sleep.

  • obpoet

    Just as there is only one interpretation of scripture, a literal one, there is only one interpretation of Coulter, a literal one.

  • Elaine S.

    Coulter is, I suspect, simply overreacting, in an “in your face” manner, to the “wacko environmentalist” movement that considers virtually ANY use of natural resources a “rape” of the earth. She is overreacting to them in much the same way that Ayn Rand overreacted to communism and Nazism and their appeal to a hugely distorted concept of “sacrifice for the common good,” by going off the deep end in the other direction and insisting that there was no such thing as common good and that sacrifice was evil. You can probably guess what she would say to those whacked-out feminists who allegedly described all sex — even within marriage — as rape. I can’t stand her, by the way; I’m about as conservative as they come but everything she says or writes sets my teeth on edge.

    • Rosemarie

      +J.M.J+

      I first heard this “rape the earth” stuff in high school. Apparently, some feminist scholar quoted Sir Francis Bacon as saying that nature should be “put on the rack and tortured for her secrets” (though there’s a controversy over whether he actually wrote that or whether Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz, an admirer of his, made the statement and attributed that attitude to Bacon.)

      Now, this ugly metaphor refers to scientific experimentation, not environmental issues, and the imagery is of an accused “witch” being tortured to extract a confession, not actual râpe per se.* Yet the feminist scholar argued that this mentality toward nature later became the philosophical underpinning for the modern “râpe and torture” of the earth by pollution, fracking, etc.

      This is apparently how the idea that the planet is being “râped” by “drilling, mining and stripping” became a common meme among environmentalists. And you’re right that Coulter is throwing that back in their faces, in her typical shocking and highly imprudent style. Yet she still shouldn’t be putting words into God’s mouth. God never told us to “râpe the earth”; that idea comes from a debatable feminist interpretation of a disputed quote from either Bacon or Leibniz.

      *Though I still cringe at the comparison of God’s good creation to a “witch” and the scientific method to “torture.”

  • Stu

    I used to read her column years ago. They is no doubt that she is quick to point out hypocrisy from the left in an effective manner and usually does so with extreme points of view (like this). For about eery 20 things she says that are sound, she pops off one really idiotic statement (like this).

    Her father, now deceased, was a devout Catholic. Miss Coulter, while very fond of her father, does not practice the Faith. She was born on the Feast of the Immaculate Conception. Pray that Our Lady brings her home. There is a sharp wit there that just needs tempering from Christ.

  • Sus

    Ann Coulter has been irrelevant since she said 9/11 widows were enjoying their husbands’ deaths. She’s a joke.

    Stu, I think for every 20 things she says, maybe one might be sound.

    • Stu

      I suspect you only hear about the more extreme statements. There is no doubt that she has some intelligence. As with all of us, her vectoring isn’t always correct even with much thrust.

  • Elmwood

    What she said is pretty much what the GOP stands for: protecting the environment only when it makes financial sense to do so. The GOPers need to remove the scales from their eyes and see what the GOP is all about: materialism and greed. They are the flip side of the Democrats. Catholics need to wake up and not get caught up in political parties and instead become “Catholic”, which is neither GOP or democrat.

  • “joe”

    “since it’s the right sort of heresy, this particular flake spouting idiocy gets a pass in the swirling vortex of highly selective factionalism that passes for orthodoxy in Faithful Conservative Catholic discourse.”

    absolutely, 100% bang-on