Glenn Beck and Ann Coulter: the Credibility Gap

A true conservative wants to "conserve" what's good from the past and preserve it for future generations. The word derives from the Latin conservare meaning to guard, to preserve, to cherich, to treasure, to save. And yet two celebrity conservatives, Glenn Beck and Ann Coulter, recently came out legitimizing homosexuality. It puts their "conservative" credentials in serious jeopardy.

Frankly, I was shocked when Glenn Beck decided that the institution of marriage, which is almost as old as human civilization itself, just isn't worth defending. Beck even laughed when questioned about it on the O'Reilly factor. He responded to Bill O'Reilly's question, "Do you believe gay marriage is a threat to the country in any way?" saying, "A threat to the country? No I don't." Then he added with sarcasm, "Will the gays come and get us?" and quoted Thomas Jefferson, "If it neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket, what difference is it to me?"

Interesting response. It could equally justify indifference toward slavery or abortion or, for that matter, rape or spouse abuse, or pornography or any number of other moral issues. Hey, whatever floats your boat! As long as it doesn't affect me personally, "what difference is it to me?"

The Ann Coulter controversy arose when she decided to keynote the HOMOCON conference in September sponsored by GoProud, a self-described group of conservative gays. It caused World Net Daily (WND) to disinvite Coulter as the keynoter for their Take Back America National Conference next month. Ann went ballistic calling Joseph Farah, head of WND, "a swine" and "a publicity whore" and labeled WND "fake Christians" only interested in driving folks to their website and making money. This from a woman who said of her speech for GoProud, "They hired me to give a speech, so I’m giving a speech. I do it all the time. I speak to a lot of groups and do not endorse them. Giving a speech is not an endorsement of every position held by the people I’m speaking to.”

So who exactly is the "whore" who will do her thing for anyone who comes up with the money even if it lends legitimacy to their evil agenda? She disingenuously compared her decision to speaking on liberal college campuses, a totally different situation. I find it hard to believe she really thinks they are the same thing, but it makes a good sound bite.

Farah responded to Coulter's sophistry saying, "GOProud is about infiltration of the conservative movement and dividing it from within with twisted and dangerous ideas way out of the mainstream of American public opinion. Ann Coulter is, I'm afraid, validating this effort for money. I support her speaking to people with whom she disagrees on college campuses. That's a good idea. I do it, too. But if you see the way GOProud is exploiting its coup in getting Ann Coulter to speak to its HOMOCON event, you begin to understand what a mistake this is for a conservative icon like Coulter."

Farah is right and Ann Coulter's attack on him shows exactly how prideful this woman is. Farah seems to me to be a consistently conscientious man who sees the battle for the culture much more clearly than Ann Coulter does. I've read Coulter's books and even given them as gifts, but I've always been uncomfortable with her crass rudeness and immodest clothing as well as her glibness. But for her to call her critics "fake Christians" for objecting to her legitimizing homosexuality is staggering. The homosexual movement is chortling over their coup in getting an icon of conservatism to give them credibility. But it totally undermines Ann Coulter's.

In view of what Coulter thinks of people like me, I'll never buy another of her books. She's made it clear that those of us who oppose legitimizing the gay lifestyle are "fake Christians." Although what exactly makes her a Christian, I'm not sure. After all she herself says her motivator is money. And the Bible says you can't serve both God and Money. So who is her god? The Bible also condemns homosexual activity in no uncertain terms as a sin that cries to heaven for vengeance. But Ann has decided that lending her name to homosexual "conservatives" (exactly what are they conserving?) is the way to go. You pays the money, you gets the girl. Sounds a lot like the same deal that goes down in the red light district every night.

I'm disappointed in Glenn Beck and Ann Coulter, but not really surprised. After all, the homosexual movement has a lot of money and influence and you pay a big price for bucking them. So why not fudge a little by cosying up to the fiscal conservatives in the gay movement? Just close your eyes to the fact that they also promote things like gay marriage, gay adoption, lowering the age of consent, undermining the military, and special rights for homosexuals paid for by American families.

Beck and Coulter apparently think the culture war is a game. They've created a credibility gap for themselves. Some things can only be conserved by consistently fighting for the truth. The Bible calls us to "do all that your duty requires and hold your ground." Those who claim to be Christians have a particular obligation to carry out that Biblical imperative. And holding ground on the essential laws of God, like the reality that marriage is a God-given institution between one man and one woman, is primary. Glenn Beck and Ann Coulter have freely given up ground to the enemy. When soldiers do that, it's treason. Is it any less a treason when the battle is spiritual?