In his third chapter entitled Media as Epistemology, Postman serves us a concise summary of his position relative to the topic of this chapter and the central theme of his entire book:

"Some ways of truth-telling are better than others, and therefore have a healthier influence on the cultures that adopt them. Indeed, I hope to persuade you that the decline of a print-based epistemology and the accompanying rise of a television-based epistemology has had grave consequences for public life, that we are getting sillier by the minute. And that is why it is necessary for me to drive hard the point that the weight assigned to any form of truth-telling is a function of the influence of media of communication. ‘Seeing is believing’ has always had a preeminent status as an epistemological axiom, but ‘saying is believing,’ ‘reading is believing,’ ‘counting is believing,’ ‘deducing is believing,’ and ‘feeling is believing’ are others that have risen or fallen in importance as cultures have undergone media change. As a culture moves from orality to writing to printing to televising, its ideas of truth move with it." (page 24 [emphasis added])

Postman is obviously not a multiculturalist who posits all cultures being equivalent. He continues to clarify his position by showing how the underlying philosophy of discourse can have the impact that he claims it does:

"...at no point do I care to claim that changes in media bring about changes in the structure of people’s minds or changes in their cognitive capacities....My argument is limited to saying that a major new medium changes the structure of discourse; it does so by encouraging certain uses of the intellect, by favoring certain definitions of intelligence and wisdom, and by demanding a certain kind of content - in a phrase, by creating new forms of truth-telling. I will say once again that I am no relativist in this matter, and that I believe the epistemology created by television not only is inferior to a print-based epistemology but is dangerous and absurdist." (page 27 [emphasis added])

"We are now a culture whose information, ideas and epistemology are given form by television, not by the printed word. To be sure, there are still readers and there are many books published, but the uses of print and reading are not the same as they once were; not even in schools, the last institutions where print was thought to be invincible. They delude themselves who believe that television and print coexist, for coexistence implies parity. There is no parity here. Print is now merely a residual epistemology, and it will remain so, aided to some extent by the computer, and newspapers and magazines that are made to look like television screens. Like the fish who survive a toxic river and the boatmen who sail on it, there still dwell among us those whose sense of things is largely influenced by older and clearer waters." (page 28 [emphasis added])

Postman’s Core Thesis:

"Obviously, my point of view is that the four-hundred-year imperial dominance of typography was of far greater benefit than deficit. Most of our modern ideas about the uses of the intellect were formed by the printed word, as were our ideas about education, knowledge, truth and information. I will try to demonstrate that as typography moves to the periphery of our culture and television takes its place at the center, the seriousness, clarity and, above all, value of public discourse dangerously declines. On what benefits may come from other directions, one must keep an open mind." (page 29)

Previous installment
Next installment

In response to the fuming of the Democrats over the recent airing of "The Path to 9/11," Hugh Hewitt has almost singlehandedly introduced and championed the use of the word "fecklessness" to describe President Clinton’s demonstrable nonresponse to the terrorist attacks on U.S. interests that occurred on his watch. It is not my intent to discuss that particular issue, but the fact is the word was and is singularly appropriate. The Oxford English Pocket Dictionary that comes with my word processor of choice defines "feckless" as:

1. ineffectual; feeble. 2. unthinking and irresponsible.

The Webster’s New World College Dictionary, 4^th edition, definition is identical:

1. weak; ineffective. 2. careless; irresponsible

My contention here is that this word, in addition to accurately describing the Democratic approach to the war on terrorism, also thoroughly defines in all points the multicultural worldview that serves as the underlying philosophy of the majority of liberals. This worldview holds that no particular culture or ideology is superior in any way, except, of course, the multicultural one, and that judgments of good and bad cannot be made upon any people group simply because they are different and hold different, or even completely opposite, views from us. We are to be "tolerant" of other cultures. We must "understand" them, not criticize them. After all, they are only doing what they think is right, and since there really is no right or wrong, no transcendent standard to which their behavior may be compared and by which it may be evaluated, we must simply find a way to get along without all the moralization and name calling. These individuals become hypocritically vexed when confronted with someone of a monocultural worldview who refuses to acknowledge the validity, and, indeed, superiority, of the multicultural view, and thus prevent multicultural doctrine from making and controlling policy at any level. Tolerance evaporates in such cases, unless, of course, their opponent is holding a sword in their hand. Regrettably, it would appear that most of western civilization has embraced this philosophical foundation, Europe in particular, but large portions of the U.S. as well.

Multiculturalism seems to be a response to the empirical observation that there are a multiplicity of competing truth claims in the world expressed in the various cultures and ideologies out there. However, rather than entering the marketplace of ideas and doing the intellectual work of seeking out the truth, the multiculturalist takes the lazy way out and refuses to enter the discussion of the validity of competing worldviews by declaring all worldviews equally valid and denying the existence of Truth (with a capital T). As such, it is unthinking and thus the emphasis on feelings and not engaging in any discriminating behaviors because it might hurt someone’s feelings. This mindset so permeates our culture now that even conservatives ask one another’s opinions in discussions with the question, "How do you feel about...?" (To which I want to reply, usually in a scream of frustration, "It doesn’t matter what I feel, the question is what do I think about it!") The concept of objective reality is becoming more and more elusive to that portion of 21^st century mankind ensnared by multicultural attitudes.

It is this concept of objective reality, of ultimate Truth, that seems to be particularly anathema to multiculti’s, and I would like to suggest a reason why. If there is ultimate Truth, then there is the distinct possibility that there is an external standard to which we may ultimately be held. There would be responsibility, but the nature of multiculturalism denies responsibility all together. (In the 60's, it was "the devil made me do it!" Today we blame the culture, the environment, the Republicans, and especially President Bush. But it wasn’t me!) At its core, this worldview is as selfish and narcissistic as it can be. They want to do what they want to do, becoming a law unto themselves. To justify their ability to do so, they have developed this philosophical foundation that denies the existence of any external standards. Lest you think I exaggerate, I would bring to your attention the following quote from one Aldous L. Huxley (1894-1963), an English novelist and critic, and author of Brave New World (1932). In another book of his entitled Ends and Means, also published in 1932, he writes:

"I had motives for not wanting the world to have a meaning; and consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics. He is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do. For myself, as no doubt for most of my friends, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom. The supporters of this system claimed that it embodied the meaning - the Christian meaning, they insisted - of the world. There was one admirably simple method of confuting these people and justifying ourselves in our erotic revolt: we would deny that the world had any meaning whatever."

Incidently, the theory of evolution was one of the primary tools used by the Huxleys in asserting and promulgating their philosophy and they championed application of this theory to multiple arenas outside that of biology. Ultimately, the meaningless of human culture is the result of multiculturalism. If all are equally valid, none can be particularly significant.

The feckless bankruptcy of multiculturalism becomes particularly stark when with faced with a monocultural worldview such as we are faced with in Islamic fascism (let’s not cheapen language by refusing to call it what it is; political correctness won’t save us). Islamic fascism is certain of the truth of its worldview, and its adherents are more than willing to die for it, especially if they can take some infidels along with them. Of course, most monocultural worldviews believe theirs is the way of truth; the critical question is, how do they engage differing worldviews? Or, in other words, what does the content of their truth say about how to spread their faith/ideology/worldview to others? Islamic fascism is the only such view today that engages in radically violent, evil, bloodthirsty behavior amounting to blackmail to do so. The multiculturalists response is ineffectual and feeble at best. They have no foundation on which to mount even a self preserving defense because in this worldview, there is no such thing as evil to be opposed, only difference to be tolerated. And as noted above, even this "tolerance" is applied inconsistently. Islamic fascism is to be tolerated and appeased (because they hold a sword?), but fundamental Christianity is dangerous and to be opposed? Christians are not to be allowed free speech, freedom of association, or basically, any other freedom except to shut up and sit down while the multiculti-elite manage the world.

For the multiculturalist, self-defense, especially with violence, is immoral. Thus we have all the nonsense about the moral high ground in the national debate on the treatment of the murderous thugs caught in acts of violence, all too often not against armed forces, but against innocent and unarmed men, women and children. They are blind to the fact that such high moral ground is merely the site of literal suicide as their enlightenment flings them off the high precipice of their moral confusion. Pardon me if I decline to subscribe to such delusional self destruction.

This inability to define and see true evil is the most dangerous consequence of this worldview. Hugh Hewitt plays an audio clip every now and then from some movie in which the actor is exclaiming something like, "I don’t like you because you’re gonna get me killed!" Not only does this position commit suicide, but it is a suicide bomber: it will take us all down with it. Because the multiculturalist has no reason to fight for his way of life, he has no true appreciation for freedom and its cost. His motto is "better Red than dead," modified it seems for the 21^st century to "better Mohammed than the grave." In sharp contrast, we have Colonel Travis’ words when he fully realized that he and the 185 soldiers gathered at the Alamo were surely to perish there: "But if I am destined to die, let my scabbard be empty, and my sword red with the blood of men who would deny freedom." Needless to say, he was not a multiculturalist! God give us the grace and wisdom to sink this philosophy into the trash heap as soon as possible. Otherwise, it will put us there instead.

In his first chapter, Postman asserts that his arguments have their roots in philosophy and go deeper than the overt symptoms of our age:

"We are all, as Huxley says someplace, Great Abbreviators, meaning that none of us has the wit to know the whole truth, the time to tell it if we believed we did, or an audience so gullible as to accept it. But you will find an argument here that presumes a clearer grasp of the matter than many that have come before. Its value, such as it is, resides in the directness of its perspective, which has its origins in observations made 2,300 years ago by Plato. It is an argument that fixes its attention on the forms of human conversation, and postulates that how we are obliged to conduct such conversations will have the strongest possible influence on what ideas we can conveniently express. And what ideas are convenient to express inevitably become the important content of a culture." (page 6)

Postman starts to apply the philosophy to the specific situation in which we find ourselves:

"For on television, discourse is conducted largely through visual imagery, which is to say that television gives us a conversation in images, not words. The emergence of the image-manager in the political arena and the concomitant decline of the speech writer attest to the fact that television demands a different kind of content from other media. You cannot do political philosophy on television. Its form works against the content." (page 7)

"This idea - that there is a content called ‘the news of the day' - was entirely created by the telegraph (and since amplified by newer media), which made it possible to move decontextualized information over vast spaces at incredible speed. The news of the day is a figment of our technological imagination. It is, quite precisely, a media event. We attend to fragments of events from all over the world because we have multiple media whose forms are well suited to fragmented conversation. Cultures without speed-of-light media...do not have news of the day. Without a medium to create its form, the news of the day does not exist." (page 8)

Yes, you read right, the telegraph. Postman tracks back the start of the problem all the way back to telegraph technology. He is not anti-technology, but looks to evaluate the side effects of the development and use of technology, which side effects are all too often overlooked if noted at all. The evidence he provides in the course of his dissertation is convincing.

One plain statement of his thesis:

"To say it, then, as plainly as I can, this book is an inquiry into and a lamentation about the most significant American cultural fact of the second half of the twentieth century: the decline of the Age of Typography and the ascendancy of the Age of Television. This change-over has dramatically and irreversibly shifted the content and meaning of public discourse, since two media so vastly different cannot accommodate the same ideas. As the influence of print wanes, the content of politics, religion, education, and anything else that comprises public business must change and be recast in terms that are most suitable to television." (page 8)

And therein lies the problem, as he develops with more detail in the remainder of the book. We shall see that the impact on politics, religion, and education has been a "dumbing down" of a once intellectual culture and people. Others have noted this phenomenon, but Postman provides a plausible and reasonable cause, with evidence to back it up.

The following observation should be of particular interest to the Christian (Postman gives no evidence of himself being a biblical Christian). The Second Commandment forbidding graven images has much greater application than to simple and overt idolatry if his thesis is correct. [Emphasis is the author's.]

"In studying the Bible as a young man, I found intimations of the idea that forms of media favor particular kinds of content and therefore are capable of taking command of a culture. I refer specifically to the Decalogue, the Second Commandment of which prohibits the Israelites from making concrete images of anything. ‘Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water beneath the earth.' I wondered then, as so many others have, as to why the God of these people would have included instructions on how they were to symbolize, or not symbolize, their experience. It is a strange injunction to include as part of an ethical system unless its author assumed a connection between forms of human communication and the quality of a culture. We may hazard a guess that a people who are being asked to embrace an abstract, universal deity would be rendered unfit to do so by the habit of drawing pictures or making statues or depicting their ideas in any concrete, iconographic forms. The God of the Jews was to exist in the Word and through the Word, an unprecedented conception requiring the highest order of abstract thinking. Iconography thus became blasphemy so that a new kind of God could enter a culture." (page 9)

This observation likewise has much to say to 21^st century Christians who seek to use the media of the surrounding culture to reach that culture for Christ. When the cultural milieu is awash in a communication medium that is antithetical to the message to be conveyed, the adoption of that communication medium is to be avoided if we are to be true to the message.

Next installment
Previous installment

A dose of humor in tough times:

Bob Hope on YouTube.

THIS is an extraordinary essay.

A sample that includes the conclusion:

It is denial that turns people into sheep. Sheep are psychologically destroyed by combat because their only defense is denial, which is counterproductive and destructive, resulting in fear, helplessness and horror when the wolf shows up.

Denial kills you twice. It kills you once, at your moment of truth when you are not physically prepared: you didn't bring your gun, you didn't train. Your only defense was wishful thinking. Hope is not a strategy. Denial kills you a second time because even if you do physically survive, you are psychologically shattered by your fear helplessness and horror at your moment of truth....

This business of being a sheep or a sheep dog is not a yes-no dichotomy. It is not an all-or-nothing, either-or choice. It is a matter of degrees, a continuum. On one end is an abject, head-in-the-sand-sheep and on the other end is the ultimate warrior. Few people exist completely on one end or the other. Most of us live somewhere in between. Since 9-11 almost everyone in America took a step up that continuum, away from denial. The sheep took a few steps toward accepting and appreciating their warriors, and the warriors started taking their job more seriously. The degree to which you move up that continuum, away from sheephood and denial, is the degree to which you and your loved ones will survive, physically and psychologically at your moment of truth.

A must read.  (HT: LGF)

Rarely will one find a work that may be described as both a seminal work and a watershed, but IMHO, Neil Postman’s 1986 book, Amusing Ourselves to Death, (ISBN 0140094385) achieves this dual distinction. The significance of the work is apparent in the subtitle: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business. In this age in which a significant portion of the American population seems to hold an anti-intellectualism that is characterized by the inability to hold a rational debate without sliding into ad hominem attacks and subjective argumentation (although calling it argumentation is not really an accurate description of what they tend to do), this book goes a long way in explaining how this lamentable situation has developed. Michael Savage proclaims that "liberalism is a mental disorder," and Hugh Hewitt frequently refers to the "Fever Swamp." Both are apt descriptions of the mental processes of many of our fellow Americans on the liberal left end of the spectrum, despite how nice they may be otherwise. I propose publishing here some of the key points of Mr. Postman’s thesis, developing further the relevance for today in hopes of understanding how we got here and perhaps how to oppose if not reverse this pernicious trend.

Postman's Forward places before us a contrast between the equally chilling prophecies of two of the twentieth century's earlier writers. George Orwell wrote in his novel, 1984, of a totalitarian society that burned books, of a Big Brother who militantly deprived the people of their autonomy, maturity and history. On the other hand, Aldous Huxley's vision in his Brave New World foresees the day when "people will come to love their oppression, to adore the technologies that undo their capacities to think." To quote Postman more extensively on this contrast,

What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy. As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny "failed to take into account man's almost infinite appetite for distractions." In 1984, Huxley added, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we hate will ruin us. Huxley feared that what we love will ruin us.

This book is about the possibility that Huxley, not Orwell, was right.

No reason to ban books because so few want to read them? So much information we are reduced to passivity and egoism (narcissism?!)? Truth drowned in a sea of irrelevance? A trivial culture preoccupied with feelings? Does any of this ring as true to you as it does to me as a description of 21^st century American culture? Let us compare Mr. Postman’s analysis to our current situation and culture and judge how accurate a prophet he truly was.

Next installment

Victor Davis Hanson’s September 1^st contribution to National Review Online hits the target dead on. The nature of the enemy is reviewed with clarity by presenting data rather than feelings. The subsequent warning:

The truth is that we are in a pause, a lull in a great storm that broke upon us five years ago on September 11. We are waiting to see when and where and how - not really if - the Iranians test their envisioned bomb. "Another 9/11" is now part of the lexicon, suggesting that most Americans accept that an amorphous enemy that tries to knock down the Sears Tower, to blow up the Holland tunnel, to explode airliners over the Atlantic, and to slaughter commuters from London to Madrid to the Rhine may finally get lucky once - and that once could be a death warrant for thousands of Westerners.

Read the whole thing. Heads must be burrowed out of the sand.

Mark Steyn then takes up the argument from the other side with his commentary in the September 3^rd issue of the Chicago Sun-Times. Mr. Steyn gives us an insight into the "conversion" of the two Fox journalists to Islam that you won’t find too many other places (indeed, if at all). One might concisely summarize this analysis in Pogo’s famous words, "We have met the enemy, and he is us." Another excellent read right on the money. Some sample quotes here:

Did you see that video of the two Fox journalists announcing they’d converted to Islam? The larger problem, it seems to me, is that much of the rest of the Western media have also converted to Islam, and there seems to be no way to get them to convert back to journalism.

And,

...as I’ve said before, it’s never a good idea to put reality up for grabs. There may come a time when you need it.

And,

It’s striking how, for all this alleged multiculti sensitivity, we’re mostly entirely insensitive to other cultures: We find it all but impossible to imagine how differently they view the world.

This does, indeed, accurately identify a major problem with so called multiculturalism. It fails to recognize that some cultures contain or consist in mutually exclusive ideologies that cannot peacefully coexist by their very natures. And finally, the grand punchline,

It doesn’t matter how "understandable" Centanni and Wiig’s actions are to us, what the target audience understands is quite different: that there is nothing we’re willing to die for. And, to the Islamist mind, a society with nothing to die for is already dead.

If, as Goebbels said, a lie continually repeated eventually is believed to be the truth, perhaps if conservative commentators, pundits, analysts, and other such smart people keep repeating the truth...?

With the recent reports that a lab has harvested embryonic stem (ES) cells from an embryo allegedly without harming that embryo, we may rejoice that at least in some quarters it is OK to acknowledge that ethical issues do, indeed, exist in this area of endeavor. All too many view the concerns of bioethicists regarding stem cell research as much ado about nothing, so it is heartening to see some seeking an acceptable remedy to the situation that would address both sides of the issue, rather than trying to plow legislation through Congress and a Presidential veto. That’s the good news.

Unfortunately, the results reported barely begin to move the use of ES cells into the realm of the ethically useable. One bioethicist describes it as so much "ethical smoke and mirrors." Why? Understand that the normal procedure to harvest stem cell from an embryo entails dismembering an embryo into its component cells, thus destroying the embryo while preserving the individual cells. Using the new methodology, a single cell is removed from the embryo and both the embryo as a unit and the single cell survive, an "improvement" over the standard procedure if true. Problem: the study did not implant the modified embryo to determine whether or not harm had been done by the procedure, so that question remains unanswered despite claims in the media. Interestingly, the actual report in Nature is very precise and cautious in its language, using phrases like "might be possible" and "developmental potential" to discuss the implications of the work. Compare this caution with the "enthusiasm" of the reports you heard in the MSM.

In addition, it is unknown yet whether or not a single cell of a very early embryo such as that harvested here may be capable of becoming a new embryo itself, thus creating two embryos at risk rather than one. Then there is the disturbing information in the paper itself that at least 16 human embryos were killed in developing this technique, the ethical tragedy of even engaging in this line of study.

And it’s all so unnecessary.

Leaving aside the ethical issues, no work to date has overcome the biological barriers to the clinical use of ES cells in regenerative medicine. These hurdles are substantial, including generation of the functional differentiation required for effective treatment, the tendency to form tumors rather than healing tissue, and immune rejection. In contrast, adult stem cells for some time have been showing significant capabilities in the repair of damaged tissues in both animal models and early patient trials. To date, reports of successful developments in the treatments of 72 different medical problems with adult stem cells have appeared in peer-reviewed journals despite what you may have heard in the MSM. Twenty six different cancers, 15 autoimmune disorders, ten anemias and other blood conditions, five metabolic disorders, as well as cardiovascular, ocular, liver and bladder diseases are all included in that list. Of importance from a public relations standpoint, also on the list are successes in the treatment of neural degenerative diseases and injuries: Parkinson’s disease, spinal cord injury, and stroke damage. Alzheimer’s disease is not on the list, yet. Question, dear reader. Did you know that adult stem cells are already not just showing potential, or promise, but success in treating all these problems? Now, how many problems have been addressed with success by ES cells? Zero. None. Zip. Not one.

So why is anyone so hot to do research on embryonic stem cells given their dismal record to date and all the ethical issues that surround them? Were I to continue to pursue such a course in my own job, I would be, at best, reprimanded for wasting resources, if not outright fired for beating my head against a brick wall when a simple shift in direction is already showing such fruit in the hands of others.

Could it be that scientists might have agendas that go beyond the search for knowledge and the desire to cure disease and suffering?

Mark Steyn is, indeed, at his best, as so helpfully brought to our attention by Hugh Hewitt on his site. What he does in his own inimitable way is show us openly how those adopting 9/11 conspiracy postures must do so in spite of any evidence to the contrary. They will assert that George will show up to our meeting wearing a red tie and hold that to be true even if he shows up with a blue tie or no tie at all, or if he doesn’t even show up at all. In the realm of analytical philosophy, this is called an Unverifiable Proposition, and it has been amply demonstrated to be the hallmark of meaninglessness, nonsense, and metaphysical claptrap. Those who do hold such positions have constructed for themselves what is sometimes referred to as an Asylum of Ignorance.

Having placed themselves in this position, I think it is fair to question their epistemology and their fundamental grasp of reality. Of the evidence I’ve seen, it generally falls into one of three categories: 1.) only the part that supports the theory is presented, conflicting evidence is ignored; 2.) statements that can be proven totally in error; and 3.) interpretations of data presented as fact. For example, all those alleged bombs going off for a controlled demolition of the towers, did those reporting this actually see bombs? Did they see explosions to which they were close enough to accurately identify the source, and if so, how did they survive that experience? Given the large number of bombs that would have been required, why has noone leaked to the New York Times that they set them, or that they know who set them? What actually happened, by their own reports, is that they heard sounds that they interpreted as explosions, but is that the only possible explanation for those sounds given the destruction going on around them? It remains interpretation, not a fact. As Daniel Moynihan once said, "Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

Ultimately, any 9/11 conspiracy theory falls down on Occam’s razor. It is just too complex and would require too many people to remain culpably silent. And as events subsequent to 9/11 have so abundantly revealed, the ultimate problem is demonstrably not restricted to our country. There is, in fact, a global conspiracy, and it’s name is Islamic fascism, not George W. Bush.

The human condition knows innumerable strategies to defend the indefensible. Jesus ran into one such and described it in Matthew 11.16-19 (cf. the parallel passage in Luke 7.31-35):

"But whereunto shall I liken this generation? It is like unto children sitting in the markets, and calling unto their fellows, And saying, We have piped unto you, and ye have not danced; we have mourned unto you, and ye have not lamented. For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, He hath a devil. The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children."

So liberals would chastize conservatives. There is no pleasing them because they are so often beyond rationality. 9/11 happened because we failed to connect the dots, but if we try to connect the dots, then we violate something else held dear. They seem incapable of grasping that some ideas are mutually exclusive.

Another man who ran afoul of such was Martin Luther. In his introductory remarks to his work entitled "Concerning Christian Liberty," a letter he wrote to Pope Leo X in 1520, he describes what is arguably the definitive and concise statement of how to deal with such in a truly biblical way, while simultaneously supplying us with an interesting description of his opposition who sound surprisingly modern:

"I have indeed inveighed sharply against impious doctrines, and I have not been slack to censure my adversaries on account, not of their bad morals, but of their impiety. And for this I am so far from being sorry that I have brought my mind to despise the judgments of men and to persevere in this vehement zeal, according to the example of Christ, who, in His zeal, calls His adversaries a generation of vipers, blind, hypocrites, and children of the devil. Paul, too, charges the sorcerer with being a child of the devil, full of all subtlety and all malice; and defames certain persons as evil workers, dogs, and deceivers. In the opinion of those delicate-eared persons, nothing could be more bitter or intemperate than Paul’s language. What can be more bitter than the words of the prophets? The ears of our generation have been made so delicate by the senseless multitude of flatterers that, as soon as we perceive that anything of ours is not approved of, we cry out that we are being bitterly assailed; and when we can repel the truth by no other pretense, we escape by attributing bitterness, impatience, intemperance, to our adversaries. What would be the use of salt if it were not pungent, or of the edge of the sword if it did not slay? Accursed is the man who does the work of the Lord deceitfully."

You will note that there is no hint of political correctness to Luther’s response, though it is rife with biblical references, forces the conclusion that "gentle Jesus, meek and mild," needs some redefinition, and sounds oddly like he had to deal with the PC police even back in his day. And even then, they could only resort to ad hominem attacks. Perhaps Ann Coulter’s methods are not as unchristian as liberals would have us believe? Truly, there is nothing new under the sun...and wisdom is justified of her children.