Exclusive Interview: Coulter Says Book Examines 'Mental Disorder' of Liberalism

Human Events ^ | June 6, 2006 | Lisa De Pasquale

[bigsky]

In an exclusive interview with HUMAN EVENTS, Ann Coulter explains what motivated her to write her just-released book Godless: The Church of Liberalism (Crown Forum, 2006), how faith played a role, what “virtues” the Church of Liberalism promotes and much more.

Get Yours FREE!

What led you to write Godless: The Church of Liberalism?

It’s the third of a trilogy. Slander was about liberals’ methods, Treason was about the political consequences of liberalism, and Godless is about the underlying mental disease that creates liberalism.

How did your own faith contribute to your book’s premise?

Although my Christianity is somewhat more explicit in this book, Christianity fuels everything I write. Being a Christian means that I am called upon to do battle against lies, injustice, cruelty, hypocrisy—you know, all the virtues in the church of liberalism. As St. Paul said, if Christ is not risen from the dead, then eat drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die.

How do you think Godless will be received by conservatives? How about liberals?

Hmmmm, well, I think conservatives will say, “Oh I see. They’re Godless. Now I understand liberals.” Liberals will say, “Who-less”?

In Godless, you mention that a far greater number of children are sexually abused each year by educators than by priests. You also write about the sex-education programs in public schools. What suggestions do you have for parents on dealing with these issues?

As an emergency measure: home school. As a long term solution: encourage your home-schooled children to become public school teachers and destroy the temple of liberalism.

A large portion of the book addresses the left’s contempt for science. Why do you think the left is uneasy with the scientific facts you discuss regarding AIDS, gender differences, IQ and embryonic and adult stem-cell research?

Because science is not susceptible to their crying and hysterics.

Why do you think the left uses mouthpieces like Cindy Sheehan and Max Cleland to advance their message?

So they can engage in crying and hysterics and hope this will prevent us from responding.

George Clooney said that it was difficult making his movie Good Night and Good Luck because so many people had read your book, Treason, which exposed the truth about Soviet agents in the U.S. government and exonerated Sen. Joseph McCarthy. What impact do you hope Godless will have on the political scene and people’s misconceptions about evolution?

I would like evolution to join the roster of other discredited religions, like the Cargo Cult of the South Pacific. Practitioners of Cargo Cult believed that manufactured products were created by ancestral spirits, and if they imitated what they had seen the white man do, they could cause airplanes to appear out of the sky, bringing valuable cargo like radios and TVs. So they constructed “airport towers” out of bamboo and “headphones” out of coconuts and waited for the airplanes to come with the cargo. It may sound silly, but in defense of the Cargo Cult, they did not wait as long for evidence supporting their theory as the Darwinists have waited for evidence supporting theirs.

You frequently write about liberals’ using the courts to advance their agenda. Should conservatives start doing the same by electing and embracing conservative activist judges?

Only long enough to get liberals to admit that judicial activism isn’t so much fun when the rabbit has the gun.

As a popular speaker on college campuses, you’ve become very familiar with the “apple-polishers” and their liberal professors. What can conservative students do to combat liberalism on their campuses?

I recommend bringing a tape-recorder to class, taking lots of notes and then writing a bestselling book like my friend Ben Shapiro’s Brainwashed: How Universities Indoctrinate America’s Youth. If every right-wing student reading this wrote a book about his college experience, they would all be bestsellers because normal Americans will not believe what is happening on college campuses across America.

What do you enjoy most about your life as a best-selling author and columnist? What do you enjoy the least?

Enjoy most: the prospect of having an impact on the public debate. Irritating liberals is a close second. Enjoy least: the travel.

In your column following the terrorist attacks on September 11, you revealed that when you wrote your columns, you pictured Ted and Barbara Olson reading them at their breakfast table. How does having such a specific audience help you while writing?

When I was writing High Crimes and Misdemeanors, the magnificent writer Joe Sobran gave me the greatest advice a writer could ever get. I called him in desperation, because I was pulling my hair out trying to write the Whitewater chapter. I explained to him that the reason Whitewater was so hard to write about was that the financial transactions comprising Whitewater were incredibly complicated—and they were complicated for a reason: to hide what was really going on. After I whined for about five minutes about how impossible this made it to explain the scandal, Joe told me to write down exactly what I had just said to him—in fact, to write the entire chapter like I was writing an e-mail to him. I did, and the Economist (written by the only economists on earth who liked Hillary’s health care plan) described it as one of the clearest explanations of the Whitewater scandal out there.

So now I write everything like I’m e-mailing one of my friends—often a friend I’ve been arguing with about whatever I am writing. I think the writing is better, and it’s a lot more fun.

Also, I noticed that when I e-mailed my friends asking them to explain some point of law to me so I could put it in my book, I’d get a lot of convoluted jargon that read like an 18th-Century legal brief. But when I sent them an e-mail casually asking, “Hey, what do you think of William Ginsberg [Monica Lewinsky’s attorney]?” I would get back some of the most beautiful prose ever written. So I recommend to all writers that they write like they’re sending an e-mail to a friend—or enemy, for some really punchy writing.

What books do you look forward to reading this summer?

I think I’ll just keep reading Godless over and over again. I love it so!

---

Copyright © 2006 HUMAN EVENTS. All Rights Reserved.

[Tax-chick]

Very thoughtful, Bob. It's true that space is horrifically big. Gives me a headache thinking about it.

[Buggman]

But there are plenty of YEC that say such reefs are evidence of Noah's flood.

Certainly, but that's not how you represented the claim. No YEC today (or in the last century at least) that I know of thinks that sedimentary layers, dinosaur bones, etc. were put there by God or Satan to deceive us.

Christians get slandered enough by the world without brethren doing it to each other. And you obviously know your stuff enough to provide a good refutation of YEC without misrepresenting the opposition. If you have a good argument why the fossil corals could not have been formed by setiment shifting during the Flood, I'd love to hear it sometime. (I'm agnostic on the issue of the age of the earth, and can and have argued both sides.)

Glad you like our congregation's website. If you're ever on the east side of Atlanta and would like to get together, drop me a Freepmail!

Your brother in Yeshua,

[RadioAstronomer]

I'm agnostic on the issue of the age of the earth, and can and have argued both sides

The evidence is conclusive for an ancient Earth and an ancient universe. There is no credible argument against that fact these days.

[hosepipe]

[ Why then would you insist on constraining His sphere of influence to only a few thousand years? ]

Like Carl Sagan said," Life had to start somewhere first, why Not HERE".. Earth could be and probably is a "test", for some future universal plan.. maybe populating the universe when a mode of transportation is revealed much faster than "light".. Light is so freepin slow.. A few thousand years could suffice for that purpose..

OH! and test would Not be how smart you thought you were.. ;^)..

[hosepipe]

[ Schere beauty all right. By the way, what are you drinking? I'm looking forward to getting some. ]

Not drinking..
What are you smoking?..

[Tribune7]

Here you go :-)

I would like evolution to join the roster of other discredited religions, like the Cargo Cult of the South Pacific.

[hosepipe]

[ Your razor sharp observations really add a lot to the discussion of serious issues. ]

If you grasped what I said you must NOT be a RINO..
If you are, its too deep for you..

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for the ping and for sharing your thoughts!

[MeanWestTexan]

"No YEC today (or in the last century at least) that I know of thinks that sedimentary layers, dinosaur bones, etc. were put there by God or Satan to deceive us."

Alas, I heard that preached --- albeit as speculation --- sitting in an otherwise excellent bible church in Dallas, Texas.

Same argument resurfaces --- by the nut factor, admittedly --- on F.R.

"If you have a good argument why the fossil corals could not have been formed by setiment shifting during the Flood."

To GREATLY oversimplify (putting books in a post here), oil and gas are generally found "trapped" by old coral reefs, some as deep as five miles down through solid rock/shales. (Exceptions abound that are beyond the scope of this post.)

To form a good trap, they are clean reefs (not crushed or tumbled, like you see after some event like earthquake or even slow like rise of a mountain range), just as the reefs one sees off the coast today.

Now, we know reefs of today very slowly grow over time in a fairly predicable pattern. This pattern and shape is repeated underground, which is one clue: (1) as to age, (2)the fact that it would take a heck of a lot longer than 40 days to make them (assuming not planted by God, etc) and (3) the supports fact they have not been moved (because they break easily, being porus, which is why they have oil and gas trapped); and (4) The fact they are miles thick is also pretty conclusive that they took some considerable time to grow.

The sea shells in said reefs (generally microfossils --- too small to see with the naked eye) further progess evolutionarily over different layers in a predictable pattern.

Indeed, said microfossils are used to determine what "layer" you are in --- and thus if oil and gas can be found, which is why I care. Again, predictiable, not catyclismic layers. If some dramtic event moved them, they'd be scrambled.

Further, the fact that primative forms are consitently found at one layer and more diverse forms found later pretty well proves that said reefs grew over a very, very long time, not 40 days.

[MeanWestTexan]

Oh, I think everyone here grasped what you said.

It was just SO brilliant, it left us all speachless.

[hosepipe]

[ Oh, I think everyone here grasped what you said. / It was just SO brilliant, it left us all speachless. ]

True, I'm a barbarian.. {spit}..

[BrandtMichaels]

NicknamedBob remarks appear in italics:
I think it's safe to assume that Liberals flourish anywhere that there is no true accountability, or where an historical predilection has led to their dominance in a particular field. I concur, this is readily apparent to me regarding evolution. If it were not so then the creation theory would be allowed equal airtime in classrooms and the MSM. Whatever else you’ve said that I omitted I generally agree with. However, don’t expect another reply from me since your positions appear to float so freely all over the evolution/creation debate.

I find it intriguing that this discussion is even taking place, for the basic premise here is a matter of provability. The basic premise here is does your starting point disregard the Bible? Mine does not. I’m very well aware that most do not include the Bible for any point of scientific reference. Furthermore, most think this is unscientific – I disagree. The Bible records much scientific fact - before these same scientific facts were discovered by mankind.

It is demonstrable that selection of particular characteristcs produces change. I agree but only within species. I have examined much evidence for transitional species and I remain completely unconvinced. One should not ignore the variety of fossil life that appeared (by evo dating in the Cambrian age) full and abundant instantaneously rather than reflecting eons of evolution from one-celled life to multi-cellular life. Also since the beginning lots of species/sub-species have gone extinct but no new ones have arisen imho.

None of this is theoretical. It is careful, neutral, and repeatable observation. Sorry to disagree yet again, but all science is biased, not neutral – often the bias is hidden though. And if it were beyond theoretical then these debates would cease.

Darwin's conjecture related to "The Origin of Species" not the origin of life. He deduced, logically enough, that sufficient change would constitute a change in species, especially over the course of innumerable generations. Observation and logic would appear to be unassailable, but here we are. Actually I believe he only inferred intra-species evolution and he never actually gets around to origin of species. If wrong, please provide quote and chapter/page. Splitting hairs here too - origin of species versus life (Did you mean origin of universe?).

What constitutes a different species? The definition is clear, and it can easily be reached once sufficient change has been developed in the respective genomes. Easily reached!? Sure – if you completely ignore everything Michael Behe points out in Darwin’s Black Box regarding microbiology. Basically, the growth of scientific knowledge has continually widened the gulf for jumping from one species to another. Do you realize how many millions of different permutations are needed for just 1% difference in DNA?

What has any of this to do with Creation? Nothing. Nothing at all. Life was created, and then it changed. It changed when Man was ejected from the Garden, and it has changed many, many times before and after...

Creation, and evolution, are not in conflict, and never have been, except by those who appear to not understand the concept of the scale of time. I'm totally confused by you're statements here? Evolution is completely opposed to creation and a creator God! "No conflict"(?) - Are all the FR postings here are just so people can play devils advocate? Not sure why you would even reference the Garden (of Eden) – which is it God, natural selection, or (shudder) both?

In all that limitless Space, then, do you think that God is not operative throughout the Universe? Indeed, I most definitely believe God is operative throughout the universe!

Why then would you insist on constraining His sphere of influence to only a few thousand years? I have not constrained His sphere nor would I ever even think it possible. Simply relying on His Word here - just the same I take it on faith that creation was accomplished in six literal days. If the Bible had described evolution and/or millions/billions of years then these debates would dry up.
I truly don't expect you to agree with my view of origins let alone the vast majority of FR folks, not in the scientific community, nor even the entire world (esp. regarding old age-dating of the universe) - I know I'm in a very small minority (some would like to confine me to the attic along with their wierd old aunt). By my reckoning there are myriad problems trying to equate present species populations and planentary conditions with millions (let alone billions) of years.

I think of it like this. Whenever working on a story problem first try to extrapolate an approximation then check your answer for reasonability (in this case I look to the Bible). I'm aware that several radio isotopes age-date the Earth to 4.5 billion years BUT that answer appears completely unreasonable in the Biblical perspective. So for me there is a high probability some errors and/or assumptions are yet to be corrected in the math (hint: uniformitarianism for one).

If you think you can change my mind then you would first have to disprove the Bible - conclusively. Even then I admit I would remain very very skeptical. The Bible is my source of faith, reasonability, history, and even to a limited degree science. IOW when science and the Bible disagree, I'll continue to trust the Bible.

Mankind is fallable and (esp. regarding evolution) prone to myriad fabrications. Having read quite a few books on the subject, I'm simply shocked how often whole cloth fabrications have appeared in the ToE. Even more troubling is when major portions of evidence are discredited, they still are presented as 'valid' in most evolution textbooks, papers, and discussions (you might start with the book Icons of Evolution). Better yet - for all of you evolutionists out there - please provide upto 10 scientifically proven major milestones of evidence supporting ToE - only those that have not been discredited, if possible.

[NicknamedBob]

NicknamedBob remarks appear in italics: (and again in bold)
I think it's safe to assume that Liberals flourish anywhere that there is no true accountability, or where an historical predilection has led to their dominance in a particular field. I concur, this is readily apparent to me regarding evolution. If it were not so then the creation theory would be allowed equal airtime in classrooms and the MSM. Whatever else you’ve said that I omitted I generally agree with. However, don’t expect another reply from me since your positions appear to float so freely all over the evolution/creation debate.

So, my synthesis of apparently contrary points of view is not acceptable to you? Very well.

I find it intriguing that this discussion is even taking place, for the basic premise here is a matter of provability. The basic premise here is does your starting point disregard the Bible?

Yes, my starting point disregards the Bible. I will tell you why.
Is the Bible a source of history? -- Yes.
Is the Bible a source of poetry? -- Yes.
Is the Bible a source of philosophy? -- Yes.
Is the Bible a source of chemistry? -- No.
Is the Bible a source of geology? -- No.
Is the Bible a source of comparative linguistics, tree-ring data, ice-core analysis, or plate tectonic movement analysis? -- No.

So, is the Bible a source of science? -- Yes and no.

Mine does not. I’m very well aware that most do not include the Bible for any point of scientific reference. Furthermore, most think this is unscientific – I disagree. The Bible records much scientific fact - before these same scientific facts were discovered by mankind.

It is demonstrable that selection of particular characteristcs produces change. I agree but only within species.

Man has been observing, and affecting, species for only tens of thousands of years. To pick a single example, sharks have remained unchanged for millions of years. I told you that you have to learn to appreciate the concept of unlimited time, but you obviously remain stubbornly intransigent on the subject, as if you had the limited patience of a four-year old.

I have examined much evidence for transitional species and I remain completely unconvinced. One should not ignore the variety of fossil life that appeared (by evo dating in the Cambrian age) full and abundant instantaneously rather than reflecting eons of evolution from one-celled life to multi-cellular life. Also since the beginning lots of species/sub-species have gone extinct but no new ones have arisen imho.

Your reverence for the "fossil record" as long as it seems to support your contentions, is touching. Please consider the marvelous set of unusual circumstances that is required for fossils to form. Obviously it is a discontinuous record. The miracle is that there is a record at all.



None of this is theoretical. It is careful, neutral, and repeatable observation. Sorry to disagree yet again, but all science is biased, not neutral – often the bias is hidden though. And if it were beyond theoretical then these debates would cease.

"... all science is biased, not neutral – often the bias is hidden though. And if it were beyond theoretical then these debates would cease." This is the most unintentionally humorous statement that you have made. "All science is biased?" because it does not begin with your preconceived ideas? My statement about observing change is already beyond theoretical, but still you do argue and quibble, after entering your own addendum about its relation to species. I made no such condition. I said change occurs, and it does. I said much time was required for those changes to reach the level of constituting a different species, and it does. Have we reached the point where the Timber Wolf and the Pomeranian are different species? Perhaps not yet, but I wouldn't want to be the Pomeranian in the mating ritual. I'm looking forward to that "debate ceasing" real soon now.

Darwin's conjecture related to "The Origin of Species" not the origin of life. He deduced, logically enough, that sufficient change would constitute a change in species, especially over the course of innumerable generations. Observation and logic would appear to be unassailable, but here we are. Actually I believe he only inferred intra-species evolution and he never actually gets around to origin of species.

Oh, please! "Origin of Species" was the name of the book!

If wrong, please provide quote and chapter/page. Splitting hairs here too - origin of species versus life (Did you mean origin of universe? No, I meant the origin of life, which is why I said "Origin of Life.").

What constitutes a different species? The definition is clear, and it can easily be reached once sufficient change has been developed in the respective genomes. Easily reached!? Sure – if you completely ignore everything Michael Behe points out in Darwin’s Black Box regarding microbiology. Basically, the growth of scientific knowledge has continually widened the gulf for jumping from one species to another. Do you realize how many millions of different permutations are needed for just 1% difference in DNA? Yes. What's your point?

What has any of this to do with Creation? Nothing. Nothing at all. Life was created, and then it changed. It changed when Man was ejected from the Garden, and it has changed many, many times before and after...

Creation, and evolution, are not in conflict, and never have been, except by those who appear to not understand the concept of the scale of time. I'm totally confused by you're statements here? Evolution is completely opposed to creation and a creator God! "No conflict"(?) - Are all the FR postings here are just so people can play devils advocate? Not sure why you would even reference the Garden (of Eden) – which is it God, natural selection, or (shudder) both? "Shudder?" -- I have no trouble mixing the two. I think we have the root of your problem identified. I said early on that I was convinced that God had the tool of evolution in His toolbox. Why should He create things over and over again when all He need do is change or allow to change just one or two percent of a copy?

In all that limitless Space, then, do you think that God is not operative throughout the Universe? Indeed, I most definitely believe God is operative throughout the universe!

Why then would you insist on constraining His sphere of influence to only a few thousand years? I have not constrained His sphere nor would I ever even think it possible. Simply relying on His Word here - just the same I take it on faith that creation was accomplished in six literal days. (Just curious here. How do you define days? and on which day was it that the light was separated from the darkness? If the Bible had described evolution and/or millions/billions of years then these debates would dry up.
I truly don't expect you to agree with my view of origins let alone the vast majority of FR folks, not in the scientific community, nor even the entire world (esp. regarding old age-dating of the universe) - I know I'm in a very small minority (some would like to confine me to the attic along with their wierd old aunt). By my reckoning there are myriad problems trying to equate present species populations and planentary conditions with millions (let alone billions) of years.

I think of it like this. Whenever working on a story problem first try to extrapolate an approximation then check your answer for reasonability (in this case I look to the Bible). I'm aware that several radio isotopes age-date the Earth to 4.5 billion years BUT that answer appears completely unreasonable in the Biblical perspective.

Try to keep in mind that the written word, including the Bible, came about a very, very, long time after darkness was on the face of the deep. I don't think it would have been possible to describe in words of any sort the unimaginable amount of time that there was before the record began.

So for me there is a high probability some errors and/or assumptions are yet to be corrected in the math (hint: uniformitarianism for one).

If you think you can change my mind then you would first have to disprove the Bible - conclusively.

I have no interest in doing either one. Be happy in your delusions. I am happy with mine.

Even then I admit I would remain very very skeptical. The Bible is my source of faith, reasonability, history, and even to a limited degree science (Hmmm.). IOW when science and the Bible disagree, I'll continue to trust the Bible.

Mankind is fallable and (esp. regarding evolution) prone to myriad fabrications. Having read quite a few books on the subject, I'm simply shocked how often whole cloth fabrications have appeared in the ToE. Even more troubling is when major portions of evidence are discredited, they still are presented as 'valid' in most evolution textbooks, papers, and discussions (you might start with the book Icons of Evolution).

Yadda, yadda, yadda ... give it a rest.

Better yet - for all of you evolutionists out there - please provide upto 10 scientifically proven major milestones of evidence supporting ToE - only those that have not been discredited, if possible.

End.