According to Ann Coulter, liberalism is a religion coated in scientific sounding words and one too many beautiful lies.
Godless
by Ann Coulter
Crown Forum (June 6, 2006)
Hdbk., 320 pgs.
ISBN: 1400054206
There are a few sensational stories swirling around Ann Coulter’s new book. In any case, Godless is the author’s fifth New York Times bestseller and a great read.
Notably, Coulter bravely challenges politically correct scientists. Are we mere accidents? Darwinians seem to think so. What evolutionists can’t explain, however, is the truth “about the entire fossil record, which shows a very non-Darwinian progression, noticeably lacking the vast number of transitional species we ought to see.”
In a nutshell, Coulter maintains that Charles Darwin’s theory is one BIG gap.
As an Australian, Coulter reminds me of the late Professor David Stone. He too advanced the argument that there were many inconsistencies with the evolutionary theory of evolution and openly portrayed Darwinism as one of the most overrated scientific dogmas in modern history.
But to pasty white scientists, Coulter’s views are very unfashionable. She, for example, will be painted as a heretic for writing about the many ways in which Haeckel’s embryos and Kettlewell’s peppered moths highlight the scientific community’s faith in myths. Why? Because we now know their studies were plain forgeries sold in “fact-based” science textbooks to unsuspecting pupils.
The fact is, according to Coulter, that liberalism is a religion coated in scientific sounding words and one too many beautiful lies. Her arguments are hard to ignore. Coulter has an appreciation for paradox; around which much of her literary life evolves and uses it to embarrass officialdom.
Are our mortal souls hot-wired to long for spirituality? I don’t know. In any case, Coulter shows us how the Left’s self-identified men and women of science, are emotionally invested in demonizing Christian families and Intelligent Design advocates. Muslims, however, are the only people on earth with permission slips to reject Darwin’s faith.
Capital punishment (or the lack thereof) is also a focus of much controversy in Godless. Absorbed in their own socialistic politics, and maintaining that criminals should have, and do have the right to “dutiless rights,” activist judges and materialistic lawyers are always defending granny rapists, pederasts, minimum wage punks and baby snatchers.
The Left’s favorable view of Nicola Sacco and Bartolomelo Vanzetti, for example, illustrates a sick fondness for anarchist killers. “Whether it is building prisons, mandatory sentencing, three-strike laws, or the death penalty, Democrats are against it,” Coulter argues. Sacco and Vanzetti killed lower class payroll offices for a Boston shoe factory in the 1920s to fund terrorist attacks. Yet, Hollywood elites still speak fondly of them.
It is interesting to note that, Coulter’s critics claim that her support of pro-death penalty laws and anti-abortion laws is ethically inconsistent. Then again, perhaps they don’t understand big words like “guilt” and “innocence.”
Perhaps you say, “I can’t accept Coulter’s views because Jesus was a pacifist.” Clearly, many secular Christians feel this way – they call it “social justice.” On the other hand, just because Jesus asked his disciples to turn their cheeks in some social situations, does not necessarily mean that his followers must also turn their backs on teen-age gang rapists today and knife-wielding psychopaths tomorrow.
Admittedly, Coulter does not bother reminding readers that Jesus was not a member of Jerusalem’s Amnesty International branch but that should be self-evident. Here’s a corrective: The Son of Man, who died on a cross to save us, is no more a pacifist than the dead soldier who threw himself in front of Little Tommy Blue’s would-be killer.
Guess what? Jesus Christ literally turned tables, asked people to carry weapons, spoke highly of military men and told people they were going to be thrown into the fiery lakes of hell. In other words, Ann Coulter is right. There is nothing ethically inconsistent about being a pro-death penalty Christian.
Coulter’s book covers a number of highly controversial issues in the first 146 pages. Then we come to Chapter 6, and the reader is also invited to enter the confusing world of creepy educrats. There, we find that nothing succeeds like failure. Yet, when people talk about problems in academic circles in public, they are treated as problems!
Says Coulter, “The new clergy not only teach children clever repartee such as Bush is like Hitler!, but they use their positions as taxpayer-supported wards of the state to demote the old religion, treating prayer, Bibles and Christian song like hate crimes.” Alarmingly, children are banned from showing basic public expressions of faith.
As an Australian, I was shocked to learn about the many ways in which controlling individuals ban free speech in America’s “public” schools. Needless to say, these Orwellian foot soldiers’ agendas are not dissimilar to the old thought reformers of Red Russia. No child is safe.
Australia takes a different view. In my country, for example, schools are open to mainstream faiths. Nowadays, an estimated 40% of Australians attend church-run and/or independent high schools. Moreover, the public school heads invite Christian speakers on a weekly basis to share their faith traditions.
Unfortunately, Coulter talks about a new America where intellectual diversity is stamped out. Either through pig headedness, lack of knowledge about international developments, or a desire to appease the thought police, many so-called experts overlook education issues that are crying out for refinement.
All in all, Godless is a great book. When you read it, concentrate on using your pen hand to neatly underline all the funny one liners and then email them to Hilary Clinton’s office. The key is to use your brain more efficiently by consciously laughing at liberals bent on banning God and then acting on your sense of right and wrong to slam them with the truth. Good night and good luck.
Godless is available on Amazon.com.
pizzatrays@yahoo.com
http://pizzatraysandbeerbottles.blogspot.com
Read more articles by Ben-Peter Terpstra
Coulter has written some good pieces on immigration. She agrees that any support of a "guest worker program" or a "path to citizenship" for illegal Mexicans is nothing short of treason.
Comment by John | July 28, 2006
How could anyone actually believe that science is only something liberals care about? Plenty of conservatives find creationism and ID to be pure driven nonsense, and the "critiques" of evolution to be pitiful and proudly ignorant of what they are talking about. The only reason Coulter goes after evolutionary science is because it helps simplify things into a single paranoid worldview, where anything and everything evil is stuffed into the "liberal" category, and anything that isn't directly religious is, of course, evil. The fact that many Christians (even a majority if we count the Catholic Church) have little theological problem with evolution, and that plenty of conservatives have no problem either, doesn't fit into this caricature, so its simply ignored.
Her scientific arguments are lousy even for creationists. If you really think she has anything interesting to say on that score, then please, pick a passage or two you think is really good, an makes a good point against mainstream science, and let's examine it for a second.
Comment by plunge | July 28, 2006
I can't remember the last time I read a book and laughed outloud so many times.
Maybe it makes sense from Australia, but Hillary is my senator and with her past I'm afraid to send her underlined/highlighted passages.
Comment by LI Mike | July 28, 2006
Coulter is the best and bravest conservative alive today. She does the dirty work. She creates the margins for others to work in. Best writer in America. She's not a "Bush-right-or-wrong", say like Limbaugh ( whom conservatives owe a lot to). She's a firebrand who realizes you don't shoo away vampires, you…..I'll leave the rest to you.
Comment by Joseph | July 28, 2006
You are wrong about Limbaugh being a "Bush-right-or-wrong" guy. Limbaugh takes issue with Bush often. But there is so much more ammunition to criticize liberals that he doesn't just dwell on Bush's failures. I agree with you regarding Ann's writing. However, she does make me cringe when I see her on T.V. Then, she's too much like me: Her emotions get too far out ahead of her intellect.
Comment by M. Ray Johnson | July 28, 2006
Good points.
Comment by Joseph | July 28, 2006
Ben-Peter Terpstra, this is well written and I must say that I agree whole heartedly with you. What I think is funny is that Liberals were offended about the "Jersey Girls" and really overlooked that Coulter was calling them "Godless". Just like normal, the Liberals miss the point.
I am new to blogging but I have created my own site, I am hoping to get some participation…check it out at http://conservative-majority.blogspot.com
If you agree, disagree or are indifferent to the topics, let us know…we want feedback.
Thank you once again for an excellent post.
Comment by Diego Slinkard | July 28, 2006
Great review of Coulter's book.
Comment by Bill White | July 28, 2006
Here's a nice summary of Coulter's criticisms of those committing treason by supporting liberal immigration policies (Bush, McCain, Kennedy, Condoleezza Rice, Clinton, Kerry, etc.).
http://vdare.com/mann/coulter.htm
Comment by John | July 28, 2006
This is a good Coulter article on immigration:
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=14948
Comment by John | July 28, 2006
Coulter is fun to read and makes one think. I like her "meat grinder" approach
Comment by Gary Hyde | July 28, 2006
I have to play the devil's advocate on this one. I have read a couple of Ms. Coulter's books. I have to agree with Mr. Johnson when he said, “[h]er emotions get too far out ahead of her intellect.” Ms. Coulter has a doctorate of jurisprudence and should be better at making thoughtful arguments rather than throwing half-baked rhetoric to enflame the base. Her actions may have a place in keeping the right angry enough to vote but I like to think of us conservatives as better than the liberal flamers. I may be wrong, but I prefer to believe it.
In regards to Sacco and Vanzetti I will forgive the author, being from Australia, for not knowing that there was a lot of evidence that pointed to their innocence that was deliberately suppressed by the district attorney and never heard by the jury. One of the reasons that we have such pro-criminal laws in this country is because, historically, unpopular minorities (in this case Italians) have been put to death by DAs who are looking only to either further their own political careers or to quiet the mob. I am a law student and an advocate for victim’s rights so I am not fond of pro-criminal judicial opinions but I also recognize that they arose out of a need to reign in District Attorneys and police who were abusing the power that was granted to them. As a trained lawyer Ms. Coulter should have (and probably did) know better.
As far as the Intellectual Design / Creationism vs. evolution argument; if your faith teaches that the world was created in 6 days and is only 6,000 years old; fine but don’t try and tell me that. We have historical records older than that. Evolution has its flaws and that is why it is a theory. It will be thrown away when someone comes up with a better non-supernatural explanation for the origins of the human race. In the Vatican II conference the pope before John Paul II decreed that “controlled evolution” was how God brought us into existence. I do not know if the Catholic Church has moved away from that position or still holds that as official doctrine.
Now is liberalism a religion…no it is a DAMN DANGEROUS CULT!! (Pardon my French). The liberalism taught by modern American liberals meets the definition of a cult in many ways See http://www.religio.de/cudef.html and compare the “how they do this” section with liberal practices today.
Comment by DF Lickiss | July 28, 2006
Liberalism is a persistent vegetative state not a cult. Anyone defending Sacco and his twisted twin troll proves that the mountains of evidence confirming their guilt just interferes with their thesis so in the usual Leftist fashion these facts are consigned to the re education camps.
Since even Darwin admitted his theory had holes large enough to drive a Hillary through one wonders why the secularists woship at its altar? Far from providing evidence to refute Coulter they just bring on their squads of feeces flinging monkeys, you know the types that inhabit the sociology teaching assistant lounges in third rate colleges. What is interesting to learn is how the Australian system works. But I guess the Left in Australia isn't so fearful of diversity of thought.
Comment by Thomas Jackson | July 28, 2006
Thanks to liberals, you have no rights until you've committed a crime.
Comment by G of Sedona | July 29, 2006
I did want to make one point since I saw it in this website and have heard it before. The reason I think most liberals don’t get upset with the charge that they are Godless is because of where the charge comes from. When the Devil calls you Godless you tend to not put too much stock in it. I know a lot of people think Ann is brilliant and I agree she can make a good argument but I don’t think she holds Christian values. At least not the ones I was taught growing up.
Comment by Vincent | July 29, 2006
Mr. Jackson, would you happen to have some web resources regarding Sacco's guilt? I would be happy to be wrong regarding his case but need some evidence before challenging everything I have seen regarding his case. Thanks.
Vincent, Ms. Coulter is many things but a "little Christ" (the original meaning of the term Christian) she is definately not. A modern day Sadducee (like Dobson) yes, but Gahdi was more Christian than her public self will ever be. (I will chose to assume that in person she is not so nasty.)
Comment by DF Lickiss | July 29, 2006
Yes, you got me, I want to ban God! Er, how exactly do I go about doing that? Maybe we could ban stupidity while we are at it.
I love you guys, you never fail to make me laugh just when I need it. I also agree that Coulter probably is the best and bravest conservative alive today. Yes, I would definitely agree with that.
Comment by Max Godwin | July 30, 2006
DF Lickliss, “little Christ” (the original meaning of the term Christian)
Would you be so kind as to show your source for this information??
As I understand it, Christian, first used in the bible in the book of acts;
Act 26:28 Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian.
Christian which is numbered 5546 in Strong's concordence is defined as, a follower of Christ.
And as far as you calling Ann Coulter a Sadducee, no where have I seen her deny the resurrection of the body, or the immortality of the soul.
Perhaps you can enlighten us as to where you get your sage wisdom and overwhelming knowledge of all things Christian.
Comment by Gary Hyde | July 30, 2006
Max Goodwin is a hater. He hates anyone who disagrees with him and has said so (see his posts elsewhere on this site). We can safely ignore this man's comments as bigotry.
Comment by mountain man | July 30, 2006
DF Lickliss said " We have historical records older than that. Evolution has its flaws and that is why it is a theory."
It's called a theory but treated as fact. As far as your historical records go, Adam was created with the presence of age, what makes you think a rock would be treated differently?
Comment by Jay of Vancouver | July 30, 2006
whats coulter's religion?
Comment by ibbleblibble | July 30, 2006
Yes, Ann likes to stir up the pot. So what. Maybe this country needs a little shake.
By the way for those interested in a young earth you should look up the changing speed of light.
Comment by Frank Baginski | July 30, 2006
Jay,
Is it possible that God created the earth to appear to be billions of years old? Of course. The question is why? Science should be humanities best objective attempt to understand the physical universe. It should not and is not equipped to answer metaphysical questions. Science can not peer into the mind of God and I would like to suggest any real scientist won’t even try. My personal belief/faith is that God gave us a physical universe full of mystery and wants us to figure out the mysteries he has given us. As we learn more about the world and its wonders each one only confirms in my mind the existence of God.
Gary,
First as for calling Ms. Coulter a Sadducee I was not being literal in any sense of the word. I have no idea what to what faith she belongs to. I was drawing upon the image I was taught as a child of the Sadducee as reactionary old guard of the Jewish faith. Any virtue (in this case conservatism) can be carried to such an extreme that it becomes a vice. In naming Ms. Coulter a Sadducee I was saying that she is too reactionary for my tastes, nothing more.
As for the origins of the word Christian meaning “little Christ” I was told as a youth when I was active in AWANAs that it was originally an insult the Romans used to refer to the followers of Christ and that they later claimed it as a name. Much the way we did with “Yankee Doodle” which was of the insults the British regulars hurled at Washington’s troops.
See Also: Christian the name given by the Greeks or Romans, probably in reproach, to the followers of Jesus. It was first used at Antioch. The names by which the disciples were known among themselves were "brethren," "the faithful," "elect," "saints," "believers." But as distinguishing them from the multitude without, the name "Christian" came into use, and was universally accepted. This name occurs but three times in the New Testament (Acts 11:26; 26:28; 1 Pet. 4:16). Source: Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary.
http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/Ch/Christian.html
As for my “sage wisdom and overwhelming knowledge of all things Christian” I can not claim any wisdom save what God has given me in my pursuit of him. What I know of Christianity I learned as a youth in the AWANA’s program at my church. I have spent a lot of time thinking, reading, and prayerfully seeking a full understanding of all things divine.
I reject fundamentalism in all forms (Christian, Islamic, secularist, etc.). God gave us the gift of reason and I chose to believe that turning away from that gift by allowing religious leaders seeking political power to tell me what to believe is a rejection of that gift. I am not sure which Christian thinker said that “Reason proves faith,” but as I mentioned above the more I understand the mysteries of this world the more I see the hand of God in it. This is the path that God has put me on and I shall follow it in faith.
Comment by DF Lickiss | July 30, 2006
Coulter has contributed nothing to public discourse. She has said little of substance, and what she DID say has been known to real conservatives for centuries. Instead of reading third-rate hacks like Ann Coulter, oughtn't "intellectual conservatives" be reading the classics, like Dante, Locke, Aquinas, and Burke? The things they wrote are still completely applicable today, and if you don't think so… why bother calling yourself a conservative?
Comment by Ted | July 30, 2006
Ted,
What she wrote doesn't have to be new, it has to be pertinent, thought-provoking, provocative, and relevant. She qualifies, and by stirring the pot up, she has definitely hit the bulls-eye as far as getting people to talk.
Just because conservative ideas have a long and glorious history doesn't mean we stop talking about them and assume everyone knows what they are. In fact, if you read posts from the leftists on this site, it quickly becomes clear that they either don't know what conservatives believe, or they deliberatley want to misrepresent conservatives.
Ann Coulter has provided a valuable service. Once again she has demonstrated that leftists have nothing of substance to offer. I have yet to see anyone on the left actually debate the ideas. They have only attacked her. This is a telling situation.
We need to trumpet from the hilltops the principles and values of conservatism, if only to counter the disinformation spewing from the left. Ann Coulter is a provocateur, and we need a few of tose.
Comment by Rich Sherlock | July 31, 2006
I love your summer reading list, Ted, but the great men that you mentioned had heart, intellect, and grasped the higher sciences. Today, try to find a man who will suffer to defend The Family, Traditional Values, and the trust in The Almighty to tell goverment to stick their 30-Pieces-Of-Silver programs where the sun don't shine because they won't be bought. What Politician? A Bishop? Catholic Charities gets 80% of it's funding from Uncle Sam. In return, The Atrocity in America promises to, essentially, be non-Catholic, or what is sometimes referred to as the syncretistic spirit of "ecumenism". Coulter shows more (please add your own euphemism for the part of the male anatomy that denotes courage..) than any other national figure. In a world full of fuzzy-wuzzy releativity, any one desiring to cut to the bone of a fat, diseased, and incoherent carcass of a culture has my blessings and she should have yours as well.
Comment by Joseph | July 31, 2006
DF
"What I know of Christianity I learned as a youth in the AWANA’s program at my church. "
Perhaps you should have persued these studies into adulthood, it is not at odds with the path God has set you on.
Comment by Gary Hyde | July 31, 2006
DF Perhaps what you were told as a youth was not always true??? How about Santa, or the Easter Bunny.
Thank you for answering my previous questions. As for AWANA, I must claim ignorance.
Comment by Gary Hyde | July 31, 2006
The left has Michael Moore and Al Franken; the "right" has Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reilly. Most of the great conservatives were skeptical of mass democracy. The level to which public discourse has descended in this country proves their skepticism correct.
I'm not saying Coulter is right or wrong, and I'm not saying she lacks courage. What I AM saying is that conservatives have a particular duty to uphold rigorous standards of public debate. Progressives are perfectly happy seeing intellectual rigor go down the drain, but conservatives MUST preserve those standards, or cease to be meaningfully conservative. I'm simply afraid that, in a country where someone like Ann Coulter is the intellectual apex of conservative debate, the future of conservatism is grim.
Comment by Ted | July 31, 2006
Everyone has a different flavor, Ted. Some people are quiet and nice. Others want sophisticated and thoughtful. And a few, Like Ann Coulter, are abrasive and brash. For some people, she is exactly what they need to hear.
No one has ever represented Ann Coulter as "the intellectual apex of conservative debate." She doesn't have to be. Leftists have been egregiously condescending, rude, and dismissive for decades, and Ann does exactly what she needs to do - rise above the clatter to stake out a place for her message.
I don't like everything she says, nor do I always like the way she says it. But I'm glad she is taking these people on and holding their feet to the fire. She's doing yeoman's work, and I'm a fan.
Comment by Rich Sherlock | July 31, 2006
Gary,
I would be happy to carry on our conversation via email. Dflickiss. It has gone a bit beyond the discussion of Ms. Coulter’s book.
Ted,
I agree with you about what conservatism should be, and must be if we are to maintain the core of what conservatism is about. Unfortunately we do live in a mass democracy (thank you 1920s Progressive Movement and LBJ’s giving all 18yrs olds the vote) and that means that if we are to successfully undo damage the late 60’s wrought upon our nation we will have to have some people who are willing to turn the liberal’s weapons against them.
I do worry about the increasing vulgarity of the public discourse and am reading a very good book by Stephen L. Carter called “Civility: Manners, Morals, and the Etiquette of Democracy.” He wrote it some 10 years ago but its concerns are even more important and timely today. I wish I could make it mandatory reading for everyone in Congress and the various talking heads (Frankin and Coulter in particular). I would strongly urge everyone concerned about where our society is going to read it.
Comment by DF Lickiss | August 1, 2006
Ditto, I highly recommend _Civility: Manners, Morals and Etiquette of Democracy_ by Stephen Carter. It should be mandatory high school reading, and that is not a put down.
Judith Sylvester
Comment by Judith Sylvester | August 6, 2006