Coulter Does NYT a Favor; Reviews Own Book

Human Events ^ | June 7, 2006 | Ann Coulter

[boryeulb]

The long-anticipated book Godless: The Church of Liberalism was finally released this week. If the New York Times reviews it at all, they'll only talk about the Ann Coulter action-figure doll, so I think I'll write my own review.

Get Yours FREE!

Godless begins with a murder at the Louvre and then takes readers on a roller-coaster ride through the Church of Liberalism in a desperate game of cat and mouse in which the hunter becomes the hunted -- with a twist at the end you simply won't believe! It's a real page-turner -- even the book-on-tape version and large-print edition! Who knew a book about politics could make such an ideal gift -- especially with Father's Day just two weeks away!

The main problem with Godless is that I had to walk through the valley of darkness to find it. You will have to push past surly bookstore clerks, proceed past the weird people in the "self-help" section, and finally past the stacks and stacks of Hillary Clinton's memoirs. If all else fails, ask for the "hate speech" section of your local bookstore. Ironically, if you find Godless without asking for assistance, it's considered a minor miracle.

This is not a book about liberals. I stress this in anticipation of Alan Colmes hectoring the author to name names. (For people who resented being asked to "name names" during the 1950s, these liberals sure aren't shy about demanding that conservatives do the same today.)

It is a book about liberalism, our official state religion. Liberalism is a doctrine with a specific set of tenets that can be discussed, just like other religions.

The Christian religion, for example, frowns on lying and premarital sex. That is simply a fact about Christianity. This does not mean no Christian has ever lied or had premarital sex. Indeed, some Christians have committed murder, adultery, thievery, gluttony. That does not mean there's no such thing as Christianity any more than videotape of Rep. William Jefferson accepting cash bribes means there's no such thing as congressional ethics rules.

Similarly, the liberal religion supports abortion, but that doesn't mean every single liberal has had an abortion. We can rejoice that liberals do not always practice their religion.

Godless examines a set of beliefs known as "liberalism." It is the doctrine that prompts otherwise seemingly sane people to propose teaching children how to masturbate, allowing gays to marry, releasing murderers from prison, and teaching children that they share a common ancestor with the earthworm. (They haven't yet found the common ancestor ... but like O.J., the search continues.)

The demand that their religion be discussed only with reference to specific individuals -- who is godless? are you saying I'm godless? -- is simply an attempt to prevent us from talking about their religion. This tactic didn't work with Slander or Treason, and it's not going to work now.

It's not just that liberals ban Reform rabbis from saying brief prayers at high school graduations and swoop down on courthouses and town squares across America to cart off Ten Commandments monuments. The liberal hostility to God-based religions has already been copiously documented by many others. Godless goes far beyond this well-established liberal hostility to real religions.

The thesis of Godless is: Liberalism IS a religion. The liberal religion has its own cosmology, its own explanation for why we are here, its own gods, its own clergy. The basic tenet of liberalism is that nature is god and men are monkeys. (Except not as pure-hearted as actual monkeys, who don't pollute, make nukes or believe in God.)

Liberals deny, of course, that liberalism is a religion -- otherwise, they'd lose their government funding. "Separation of church and state" means separation of YOUR church from the state, but total unity between their church and the state.

Two months ago, the 9th Circuit held that a school can prohibit a student from exercising his First Amendment rights by wearing a T-shirt that said "Homosexuality Is Shameful."

Even the left's pretend-adoration of "free speech" (meaning: treason and pornography) must give way to speech that is contrary to the tenets of the church of liberalism on the sacred grounds of a government school.

How might the ACLU respond if a school attempted to ban a T-shirt that said something like "Creationism Is Shameful"? We'd never hear the end of warnings about the coming theocracy.

In fact, students are actually required to wear "Creationism Is Shameful" T-shirts in Dover, Pa., where -- thanks to a lawsuit by the ACLU -- the liberal clergy have declared Darwinism the only true church, immunized from argument. Ye shall put no other God before it. Not one.

Liberals believe in Darwinism as a matter of faith, despite the fact that, at this point, the only thing that can be said for certain about Darwinism is that it would take less time for (1) a single-celled organism to evolve into a human being through mutation and natural selection than for (2) Darwinists to admit they have no proof of (1).

If only Darwinism were true, someday we might evolve public schools with the ability to entertain opposable ideas about the creation of man.

[rabidralph]

Then you just don't get it.

[zot]

Thanks for the ping. I haven't read this book, but I agree with her thesis that liberalism is a godless religion.

[magellan]

The evolutionists' proof is their ability to concoct a story. They say the whale "evolved" when a bear fell in the ocean.

I do recall a show on PBS or Discovery Channel, where it speculated on the origin of dolphins, and indeed the thought was land mammals who lived by the sea (think sea lions or similar creatures) eventually evolved into pure sea dwellers.

This particular program speculated humans evolved from cetaceans, not apes, because of the way our arm and leg hair grows (in a streamline). Seriously.

Personally, I don't think Ann is too far off the mark. But I think it was a dog, not a bear that fell into the water. Sea lions seem a lot like dogs, and the few dolphins I have had the pleasure of meeting remind me more of a Labrador Retriever than a bear.

Evolution? Maybe. Or maybe God knew there would be seafarers someday, and they would need friendly animals around.

Of course, no doubt a big wooly mammoth fell into the ocean and evolved into the blue whale.

[Dodgers fan]

I guess to the hard left, the truth hurts.

[Dodgers fan]

The lefties can't handle the truth! This is "talking truth to the dumb".

[Right Wing Professor]

I do recall a show on PBS or Discovery Channel, where it speculated on the origin of dolphins, and indeed the thought was land mammals who lived by the sea (think sea lions or similar creatures) eventually evolved into pure sea dwellers.

This particular program speculated humans evolved from cetaceans, not apes, because of the way our arm and leg hair grows (in a streamline). Seriously.

No, not seriously.

[Right Wing Professor]

Let me guess. I know you are, but what am I is your most devastating comeback.

My opinion that Coulter fans have room temperature IQs may not have to be revised, but I'm inclined to think they heat their houses like the English.

[Heartlander]

Perhaps you could put Coulter’s quote in context so we might discern her actual meaning as you are able to do with Darwin’s statements. Surely you bought Coulter’s book and read it because I know you would not just quote from some blog that has problems with her book? I admit that I have not read her book - - - yet… It’s on the short list now though ; )

Back to Chuck… Apparently others in the scientific commune were embarrassed by his statement and he decided to revise it by removing the sentence - “Even in so extreme a case as this, if the supply of insects were constant, and if better adapted competitors did not already exist in the country, I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale.” Although in fairness, he regretted omitting this passage.

But, if we are going to quote a mere sentence and decide if an individual is worth reading - I submit this sentence:

You have expressed my inward conviction, though far more clearly and vividly than I could have done, that the universe is not the result of chance.
Darwin

Again, I am apparently not privy with the ability to discern what Darwin might or might not have meant by this statement ; )

[Tabi Katz]

This is "talking truth to the dumb".

Very well said.

[7thson]

Sunday school is not a public school.

[7thson]

This is interesting. Reading throught this thread, I get to post 28 and read what Dracian has to say. People like myself are being fleeced. In 28 posts so far, I count six posters who dislike AC. They are Dracian, saganite, HarmlessLovableFuzzball, FourtySeven, Rogueisland, and Right Wing Professor. My question - if you dislike her so much, why bother reading a thread about her? Also, have any of you read her book? I mean it has only been out two days. I know there are fast readers out there but here we have six fast readers who all dislike AC. I do not know what she fully says about evolution. My question - has evolution been proven or is it still theory? And if theory, why can we not treat it as such? I am not a scientist - nor do I play one on television - but I will read her entire book first before I risk commenting on what she has to say about evolution. In the meantime, it seems to me, you six posters get some sort of perverse pleasure participating on a thread concerning a woman you dislike.

[7thson]

What precisely does your Bible tell you about judging others?

[7thson]

Good points!

[7thson]

While I was mostly on your side, I will jump in here and state that none of us know Sagan's religious beliefs. And what does the term 'born again' really mean? What if a person always believed in God and Jesus, why does that person have to be 'born again?' I am truly offended and pissed off by people such as yourself who walk through life with a holier than thou attitude and treat others condencendingly if their belief does not match your own. And, of course, it never does. I am not worried about Sagan's salvation. He's dead and it's much too late for me to do anything about it, if I could at all, anyway. I am however, worried about my own salvation. With that said, this is a thread concerning AC. You want to preach, go to a thread about preaching.

[7thson]

Is that true? That is one funny story!

[SaveUS]

"it would take less time for (1) a single-celled organism to evolve into a human being through mutation and natural selection"

So, what are the opposing theories? The "Poof" theory? Does anyone at all believe that a God could create all of this through evolution? Or does it just have to be a swipe of the hand and it is? I have no problem with the fact that God did it, but I also believe God is one heck of a scientist. There is WAY too much evidence to support scientific theory for people to keep reverting back to "God did it." Fine, God did it. Now, as Einstein once said, "I want one equation that allows me to read the mind of God." And before you attack these statements, don't forget, without pure science you don't have medicines, cures for diseases, or anything else in your life that makes you comfortable. When you live you life purely by religion, you live like fundamentalist Muslims. That is, in a mud hut, drinking goats milk and killing your daughters for having godless thoughts of having sex. God is GREAT, that is why we are able to accomplish all that we have. By using the gift of the Scientific Method that God gave us, we can reason, discover, and invent, and hopefully survive. But no one is going to survive with, "God did it." as their only observation.

[seanmerc]

OK, since this is an important issue and there are others involved, I need to share God's word with you. In John 3:3, Jesus Himself says, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." It's not my word, it's His. If you are offended by His word, you're offended by Him, not me. You can take it up with Him. I have no beef with you. You commented that you are worried about your own salvation. That's good! If you read John chapter 3, you will see the path to assurance of salvation. Thanks for listening.

[pgyanke]

I haven't yet read a post by you where you aren't either throwing a baseless insult or taking the lady's hyperbole as proof of the Da Vinci Code (that, by the way, was hyperbole of my own... don't try to analyze it).

It's neither enlightening nor entertaining to debate someone who offers no insight. Good day to you.

[7thson]

First off, you hijacked this thread, talking about AC. Second off, you did not get my point. Or more exactly, you made my point. What is being born again? Does a person, raised as a child with belief and faith in Christ, and carries this belief into his adult life, need to be 'born again?' No, since that person always believed in Jesus. Yet, here you go daring to lecture me and point out scripture. I have read the Bible - multiple times - and yet I dare not presume to know the thoughts of Jesus and God. You seem to thus making my point concerning 'born again Christians.' And that point is you people come off as holier than thou, sanctimonous jerks who believe no one can ever match the religious fervor you possess. You feel everyone needs saving - and most do. Yet you fail to remember what Jesus said concerning spreading the good news.

If the home is deserving, let your peace rest on it; if it is not, let your peace return to you. If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town. I tell you the truth, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town. Matthew 10:13-15

It does not mean you continually beat people over the head with Jesus. You plant the seed and if it is not accepted, you move on. God will than handle it from there. You - and others like you - tend to believe that God is too busy or maybe He appointed you to handle it for Him. News Flash - He has not!

[FourtySeven]

Oh just admit it, you never respected her.

Actually, I did at one time. I loved her appearances on Hannity & Colmes, as well as many of the editorials she wrote. Then I heard about her comment at CPAC, and was seriously put off by it. But I said, "Well, she's human, she's allowed to make a mistake", and now I read that she rejects evolution?

Hey, some want to embrace her, that's fine. I still agree with 90% of what she says politically (I think), but the two issues I spoke of in my OP are some of the most important in the minds of the "moderate"; they are, as I said, the stereotype of what many think conservatives are: Ignorant about science, and racist. Of course calling a religious group a name isn't "racist", just like simply rejecting evolution doesn't make one stupid or a "rube", but in the minds of the American voter they do, so I question her judgement.