Was I Too Harsh?

A reader and another friend, AD, comments on my post about calling Ann Coulter a "bitch." Here is what he had to say:

"Dude, first of all, I know it's not a stretch to say that someone is "prettier" than Bill O'Reily, but pretty is not the adjective I'd use to describe a woman with an adam's apple biggger than mine.But that being said, I think the biggest danger for a christian reading that post is to not drop to the same level (okay, maybe it's hard to drop to the SAME level, but I mean generally not to forsake your own morals when condemming her's). I think the problem w/ people like Ann Coulter is that she lacks the basic understanding to view the world out of her lens of pure black and white. She can't see the grays that make people's behaviour complex, so when she doesn't agree with something, she tries to condemn it. That's the type of attitude that led of the Crusades, McCarthyism, the Holocaust, etc. But when we attach labels like "bitch" to a person for their viewpoints, we're dropping into that same, very dangerous, mentality. Be carefull bro. I think I'm still finding out that grace doesn't only apply to sinners, it applies to pharisees too (and that's the hardest part)."

Ouch. He got me by calling me straight out on what I was doing. These are my readers. These are my friends.

But in defense, I will go back on the offense to criticize that same comment. The reader accuses me on being stooping down to the level of an Ann Coulter by going back into name-calling and warns me of its effects, while finishing it off with our need for grace. I will agree with the essence and motive of his comments.

However, did the reader not open up his comment by refuting my comment on a woman whom I deem is pretty and calling her someone with an "atom's apple," essentially someone who could possibly be a man? He goes on to criticize Coulter for much of the same things that I had said, except much more eloquently, and even puts her in line with the atrocities of Hitler and the Holocaust, McCarthyism, and the Crusades. Not to mention you called her a Pharisee for icing on the cake. And in Sunday School 202, we learn that Pharisees are the only people who Jesus did not have a liking for.

I am not sure about you, but what is worse? Women, if you really had a choice. Would you rather be called a bitch or a man? Better yet, would you rather be called a bitch or Hitler? How about a Pharisee? At least in my second to last paragraph in the post, I had given a spin to the word, "bitch," by citing Coulter as a talented writer in humor and speech. He does no such thing. Did a simple word, "bitch," outdo every other good thing I wrote about her, from her genius to her looks to the fact that I have agreed with her views in the past.

And to top it off with a word of grace...is like the final dart one needs to shoot in order to bring a loudmouth Christian back down to earth. So...touche. But was your comment of warning for us not to call each other "bitch" motivated by "grace"? I believe not. It was motivated by a sense of "pride" if anything because of your warnings that we dare not stoop to their level. If grace were at work, the comment would speak less about the very personal and individual incentives of offering grace, but instead, would speak to the beauty and genius of God's creature who sadly took a wrong turn somewhere like the rest of us. Grace is motivated by love and love is motivated by grace, but love is nowhere to be found in the comment. "Grace" has about as much substance in the comment as "bitch" has meaning in a rap song.

Nonetheless, forgive me for my poor choice of words. I must learn to love. I must learn to offer grace. So, I still do thank you for the comment. But there is the mess of humanity and the mess of Christian accountability. Even in the effort of holding each other accountable, we often fall while doing it.