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.

[Right Wing Professor]

Ann uses hyperbole to bolster her points and fact

LOL!

So exaggeration and lies strenghten a point, do they?

You use invective to stifle debate.

Don't whine. No one's stifling anyone here. No one could.

Come now, take on some of her facts and let's have the debate...

Fine. Point me to an instance of a biologist claiming whales evolved from bears that fell in the ocean.

[Busywhiskers]

I think that science should be taught in the church and religion should be taught in the classroom.

[js1138]

On that same page Ms Coulter repeats the lie that there are no transitional fossils.

[GreyFriar]

Coulter ping

[pgyanke]

Fine. Point me to an instance of a biologist claiming whales evolved from bears that fell in the ocean.

This is why you don't get Coulter... you have no sense of humor. Tell me, did she provide a footnote for who "they" are and when "they" said it or do you think, possibly, this could be hyperbole to make a larger point?

[seanmerc]

I'm not judging anybody. I'm not discussing my standards--they're God's. Those standards are called the Ten Commandments. Can you say that you have always kept all ten of them, have never broken one of them? I know that I can't. I don't feel bad about saying that to you because I know that you can't, either.

Let's just do a quick test, shall we?

Have you ever told a lie? If so, you're a liar.
Have you ever stolen anything (small or great)? If so, you're a thief.
Have you ever used God's Name as a curse word? If so, you're a blasphemer.

That's just three of them (there are seven others), and if you're like me you can't honestly say that you have kept those three for your whole life, either. That makes you guilty before God, and destined for hell. Doesn't that prospect frighten you? It should.

On the day of your judgement, you will be measured against God's standards and found wanting. That is why you (like the rest of us) need a Savior. There is only One, and His Name is Jesus.

[joebuck]

"I agree with Ann Coulter in principle, but I can't help feeling she is an attention wh*re."

Isn't that the whole idea when one is trying to sell a product that is being distributed nationwide? I believe its called marketing.

[Busywhiskers]

Your theology is a little selective. There is plenty about not judging, usually in the context of hypocrisy. But there is also a lot about assessing the character of others by their actions, (fruits), and avoiding association with a whole laundry list of classes of people who could be said to be ungodly. Assessing the character of others and avoiding association with scoundrels requires some judgment.

[js1138]

You are sidestepping the fact that you have specific knowledge about the status of Carl Sagan. Until you retract this lie you are not worth talking to.

[veronica]

Nobody does tongue in cheek humor like Ann. And she knows how to sell books. You go girl!

[pgyanke]

On that same page Ms Coulter repeats the lie that there are no transitional fossils.

I've yet to find credible links between species. Yes, there are adaptations and mutations but there has been no link (that I have found in research) to show a change to an entirely dissimilar species.

[Senator Bedfellow]

For as much as Coulter talks about the liberal doctrine of infallability, I believe we're beginning to witness the birth of the right's equivalent - "Ann Coulter Is Never Wrong, And If You Think She's Wrong, She Was Really Just Kidding."

[BeHoldAPaleHorse]

In the odd times she actually bothers with details or hard facts, she writes things like 'evolutionists think whales are bears that fell in the ocean'.

You. Have. Got. To. Be. F***ing. Joking.

[Publius6961]

You ever hear of the word "lampoon"?

You sound like a really pissed off lampoonee...

[js1138]

Jesus set the example for shunning sinners, didn't he?

[alarm rider]

Thanks for the link. I would still like the poster to expound on the "Racist rube" comment. I am getting a bit sick and tired of people using the word "racist" when there is no race. Muslims are not a race.

[Senator Bedfellow]

No. He's not. It's really in there.

[Zeppo]

No apology needed or forthcoming. You have completely misunderstood my comment. You wrote, "In the odd times she actually bothers with details or hard facts, she writes things like 'evolutionists think whales are bears that fell in the ocean'."

You disparage her for supposedly not bothering with details or hard facts, but then you go ahead and give an example which is neither. Rather, the example that you gave is an example of her use of hyperbole. Was that absolutely the only example of "details or hard facts" given in her book? You couldn't find any facts whatsoever in the book? Doubtful. Rather, you chose to answer her hyperbole with some of your own, which is equally silly. So, I stand by my original comment.

[Rocket1968]

bump