Ex: Anne Coulter and her Adam&Eve's Apple.
2007-03-08 16:35:22 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
I don't want to say it's okay, but it is extremely difficult not to. I can be pretty mean to them myself. It's so hard not to fight back when you are attacked!
2007-03-08 16:38:08 · answer #1 · answered by the guru 4 · 2⤊ 3⤋
I am soooo itching to say... YES YES YES...
But if I do say yes, that would make me exactly what a bigot is like. Bigots have no conscience about Hurting other people by any means, whether physically, verbally or in print.
If we were to be mean in return, it would be the eye for an eye concept, and down the drain goes left cheek and right cheek philosophy.
I would say inaction..first... until they go too far, then it is action to stop them from hurting themselves or/and others.
2007-03-08 16:43:21 · answer #2 · answered by Sheena 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
With "religious bigots" maybe not...because many of them have been brainwashed with their so-called religion and religous propaganda.
But with the educated, mainstream bigots, a la Anne Coulter and Rush Limbaugh...most definitely yes because their behavior derives from pure spite.
And WWJD? Undoubtedly run them out of the temple and damn them to hell.
...
2007-03-08 16:42:48 · answer #3 · answered by YoMera 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
you be responsive to it somewhat is marvelous how plenty human beings will settle for such malarkey as evolution without evidence simply by fact it somewhat is in a e book with none proofs different than that it says so! that somebody reported it is so! without evidence of it happening - in spite of if it happens! Now the argument for God as a source of creation, Now you in all probability did not ask for God simply by fact the only doing it yet to qualify your argument then God isn't the action he's the Actor the only achieving the act of creation. In that He on my own is sufficient First reason. For a customary reason there's a distinct features which could be assigned to qualify a customary reason. a million. First reason could be greater advantageous than the preliminary result. it can not be equivalent or much less yet greater advantageous than the reason it somewhat is effecting. 2. the 1st reason could be outdoors of the consequence. subsequently the large Bang won't be able to be an sufficient reason for the consequence simply by fact it somewhat is a ingredient of it and as such it is going against the regulations of a customary reason as being outdoors of the consequence. 3. the 1st reason could willful to start the consequence. subsequently the 1st reason won't be able to be an computerized result; for it potential that the consequence initiated the reason and that makes itself the reason not the consequence of the reason. 4. the 1st reason won't be able to be repeated. this does not advise God won't be able to recreate it, it potential that it somewhat is carried out back. subsequently the stable state concept is an immediately disqualified. Now what's an sufficient First reason for right here: a million. artwork/ potential - All effective 2. Time - everlasting 3. regulations - Lawful 4. imaginitive - author 5. Love - could be all loving 6. relationships - could be relational 7. awareness - could be all understanding 8. existence - could be self-perpetuating So what's All effective, everlasting, Lawful, author, all loving, relational, all understanding and everlasting yet - our lord god Almighty
2016-10-17 22:34:04 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, it's not OK to be mean to her. As a public figure, she's fair game for criticism and parody, but it's possible that she may incorrectly interpret that as being mean. Many Christian fanatics have an imaginary persecution complex.
It is still wrong to slander her--i. e., bear false witness against her.
2007-03-08 16:48:58 · answer #5 · answered by RickySTT, EAC 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Try spending your time trying to undo some of the evil they perpetuate on the world instead.
2007-03-08 16:40:11 · answer #6 · answered by tartu2222 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Sure, of couse you know that what goes around, comes back around
I'm just sayin
2007-03-08 16:43:33 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
NO, that would be sinking to their level.
We have to take the high road and keep this civil.
Oh hell...for the Coultergeist we can make an exception....
2007-03-08 16:40:33 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
Treat people as they treat you. Good people will like you and the others will leave you alone.
2007-03-08 16:43:57 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Is there anything you could do that there "You're going to Hell," doesn't top. At least in their minds.
2007-03-08 16:42:28 · answer #10 · answered by Terry 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Even though they deserve it, no, because then you would be sinking to their level. But feel free to call them ignorant all you want.
2007-03-08 16:39:25 · answer #11 · answered by Ice 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋