My friend John Seery seems to take a perverse pleasure in provoking the liberal readers of the Huffington Post. This time, he--sort of--endorses Ann Coulters latest, er, literary rant, though he indicates that others have done long ago and much more profoundly what she does so ham-handedly. Heres a taste:
If Ann Coulter wants to deride Cindy Sheehan, the 9-11 widows, pro-choice proponents, evolutionary scientists, and secular liberals generally for their (concealed) presumptions of infallibility, then she ought to practice what she preaches, rather than adopt an asymmetrical "do-as-I-say, not-as-I-do" position. That is to say, if secular liberals ought to accommodate, respect, and even embrace religious belief within public discourse, then such civic interrogation ought to proceed in both directions. Religious thinkers need to explain and defend their views better, opening them up to challenge, rather than simply asserting them as sacred and thus off-limits. If Ann Coulter is going to disqualify Cindy Sheehans trump card of infallibility, then Ann Coulter cannot simply play her own trump card in response.
Unfortunately, all too many of Seerys commenters cant get past the headline, preferring to inveigh against Coulter than to engage with his more, er, seerious point.