NJ Dems Call for Ban on Coulter Book

Daniel says:

Ban was in press release
The Assembly members themselves are confused about the difference between a ban and a boycott. Reading the press release itself, it is clear they are calling for a boycott, but their own press office gave it the headline:

“QUIGLEY/STENDER CALL ON NJ MERCHANTS TO BAN SALE OF ‘VICIOUS’ COULTER BOOK”

I’m happy to see that no one here (as of this writing) supports either a ban or boycott of the latest Coulter book. I hope that gets noted the next time someone is tempted to write a “librarians hate free speech” entry on their blog.

For the record, I also oppose any restrictions on sales. I hope that the people who do buy or borrow this book (and I hope borrow from their library) will compare Ms. Coulter’s tone of argument with what are portrayed as the “fruits of the flesh” versus the “fruits of the spirit” as listed in Galatians 5:19-23:

Now the works of the flesh are obvious: immorality, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, hatreds, rivalry, jealousy, outbursts of fury, acts of selfishness, dissensions, factions, occasions of envy, drinking bouts, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

In contrast, the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control. Against such there is no law.

And draw their own conclusions.

Daniel says:

Re:Possible Coulter Plagariasm – not
I think the record shows that I’m NOT a Coulter fan, but the instances that Rude Pundit records don’t look like plagerism to me. They look like restatements of facts from single sentences. It would be nice if she cited her sources, but many authors do not.

Would I be plagerizing the Census Bureau if I said there are 298,968,638 in America without mentioning them?

To me, plagerism would require a longer descriptive or opinion-based passage that wasn’t sourced. Like if she lifted a few paragraphs from Laura Ingraham or Michelle Malkin about why liberals are they are.

So, even though I don’t appreciate Ms. Coulter’s style, I don’t think she can be justly accused of plagerism from these examples. But I’m willing to consider others.

As far as the Rude Pundit himself/herself is concerned, the Pundit’s writing are even more full of the hateful invective I’ve come to associate with Ms. Coulter. Neither writer has a ghost of a chance of influencing anyone outside their respective choirs with rhetoric like that. We need more dialog and fewer flames.