Posted on 06/30/2006 12:42:04 AM PDT by nickcarraway
The most amazing thing about Godless is the amount of intellectual meat Ann Coulter has packed into its pages.
Godless: The Church of Liberalism
by Ann Coulter
(Crown Forum, 310 pages, $27.95)
What's most amazing about Ann Coulter's book, Godless: The Church of Liberalism, is the amount of intellectual meat she packs into 281 breezy, barb-filled pages. Among the topics the blonde bomb-thrower discusses in some depth are the following: liberal jurisprudence, privacy rights and abortion, Joe Wilson's modest career and inflated ego, and the solid record of failure in American public schools. The topics of Intelligent Design and Darwinism, to which the last eighty pages of text are devoted, are analyzed in even greater detail.
As one would expect from an author with a legal background, Supreme Court cases are high on Coulter's hit-list -- especially the idea of a "living Constitution." Citing various cases-in-point, Coulter shows that this popular doctrine is nothing more than a paralegal pretext for making the Constitution say whatever liberal judges want it to say. Though such a philosophy grants to the nation's founding document all the integrity of a bound and gagged assault victim, it at least has the virtue of mirroring liberals' self-referential view of morality.
Another dogma that Coulter skewers is the liberal commandment, "Thou Shalt Not Punish the Perp." This counterintuitive principle not only rejects the link between incarceration and lower crime rates, it also permits benevolent judges (like Clinton federal court nominee Frederica Massiah-Jackson) to shorten the sentence of child rapists so that other innocent children can pay the price for society's sins.
An unexpected bonus in this chapter is the author's extended sidebar on Upton Sinclair, the muckraking author of Boston who, as his own correspondence shows, knew Sacco and Vanzetti were guilty but chose, for ideological and financial reasons, to portray them as innocent victims. In a related chapter, "The Martyr: Willie Horton," Coulter provides detailed information about Horton's crimes, Michael Dukakis' furlough program, and the precise nature of the Horton ads aired in the 1988 presidential campaign
CONTINUING THE RELIGIOUS IMAGERY, Coulter asserts in chapter five that abortion is the "holiest sacrament" of the "church of liberalism." For women this sacrament secures their "right to have sex with men they don't want to have children with." A corollary of this less-than-exalted principle is the right to suck the brains out of partially born infants. How far liberal politicians will go to safeguard this sacrament whose name must not be spoken (euphemisms are "choice," "reproductive freedom," and "family planning") is shown by an amendment offered by Senator Chuck Schumer that would exclude anti-abortion protestors from bankruptcy protection. How low these same pols will go is illustrated by the character assassination of Judge Charles Pickering -- a man honored by the brother of slain civil rights leader Medgar Evers but slimed by liberals at his confirmation hearing as racially insensitive. Coulter notes that the unspoken reason for this "Borking" of Pickering was the judge's prior criticism of Roe v. Wade.
The single chapter that Coulter's critics have honed in on is the one that exposes the liberal "Doctrine of Infallibility." This religiously resonant phrase applies to individuals who promote the Left's partisan agenda while immunizing themselves from criticism by touting their victim-status. In addition to the 9/11 "Jersey Girls," Coulter identifies Joe Wilson, Cindy Sheehan, Max Cleland, and John Murtha as persons who possess, at least by Maureen Dowd's lights, "absolute moral authority." Curiously, this exalted status isn't accorded victims who don't push liberal agendas. Perhaps the fact that Republican veterans outnumber their Democrat counterparts in Congress, 87 to 62, has something to do with this inconsistency.
Coulter's next chapter, "The Liberal Priesthood: Spare the Rod, Spoil the Teacher," focuses on the partisanship, compensation, and incompetence level of American teachers. A crucial statistic in these pages concerns the "correlation [that exists] between poor student achievement and time spent in U.S. public schools." In this regard, comments by Thomas Sowell and Al Shanker stand out. Sowell notes that college students with low SAT and ACT scores are more likely to major in education and that "teachers who have the lowest scores are the most likely to remain in the profession." From a different perspective, the late President of the American Federation of Teachers stated, with refreshing bluntness, "When school children start paying union dues, that's when I'll start representing the interests of school children." The words of John Dewey, a founder of America's public education system, also fit nicely into Coulter's state-of-the-classroom address: "You can't make Socialists out of individualists -- children who know how to think for themselves spoil the harmony of the collective society which is coming, where everyone is interdependent." Coulter responds, "You also can't make socialists out of people who can read, which is probably why Democrats think the public schools have nearly achieved Aristotelian perfection."
The last third of Godless focuses on matters scientific. Chapter seven, "The Left's War on Science," serves as an appetizer for Coulter's evolutionary piece de resistance. Prior to that main course, Coulter provides a litany of examples that illustrate the left's contempt for scientific data that doesn't comport with its worldview. Exhibits include the mendacious marketing of AIDS as an equal opportunity disease, the hysterical use of anecdotal evidence to ban silicon breast implants, and the firestorm arising from Lawrence Summers's heretical speculation about male and female brain differences.
THE REMAINING CHAPTERS OF GODLESS all deal with Darwinism. Nowhere else can one find a tart-tongued compendium of information that not only presents a major argument for Intelligent Design but also exposes the blatant dishonesty of "Darwiniacs" who continue to employ evidence (such as the Miller-Urey experiment, Ernst Haeckel's embryo drawings, and the famous peppered moth experiment) that they know is outdated or fraudulent.
Within this bracing analysis, Coulter employs the observations of such biological and philosophical heavyweights as Stephen Gould, Richard Dawkins, Michael Behe, and Karl Popper. The price of the whole book is worth the information contained in these chapters about the statistical improbability of random evolution, the embarrassing absence of "transitional" fossils, and the inquisitorial attitude that prevails among many scientists (and most liberals) when discussing these matters. Unlike biologist Richard Lewontin, who candidly admits that a prior commitment to materialism informs his allegiance to evolution, most of his colleagues (and certainly most of the liberal scribblers Coulter sets on the road to extinction) won't concede that Darwinism is a corollary, rather than a premise, of their godlessness.
Coulter's final chapter serves as a thought-provoking addendum to her searing cross-examination of evolution's star witnesses. "The Aped Crusader" displays the devastating social consequences that have thus far attended Darwinism. From German and American eugenicists (including Planned Parenthood's Margaret Sanger), to Aryan racists, to the infanticidal musings of Princeton's Peter Singer, Darwinian evolution boasts a political and philosophical heritage that could only be envied by the likes of Charles Manson. Yet it is a history ignored by liberals for whom Darwin's theory provides what they want above all else -- a creation myth that sanctifies their sexual urges, sanctions abortion, and disposes of God.
Coulter's book is clearly not a systematic argument for the idea that liberalism is a godless religion. Indeed, prior to the material on evolution, the concept is treated more as a clever theme for chapter headings than as a serious intellectual proposition. In those final chapters, however, Coulter manages to present a cogent, sustained argument that actually begins to link modern liberalism (or more specifically, leftism) to an atheistic perspective. At the very least Coulter succeeds in raising an important issue -- namely, that American courts currently ignore the religious or quasi-religious character of a philosophy that pervades public institutions and is propagated with public funds. This fact, if honestly recognized, would render contemporary church-state jurisprudence untenable. A Court taking these arguments seriously would have to recognize that all philosophies, including "liberalism," swim in the same intellectual current as religion.
THUS FAR, THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA have focused almost all their attention on Coulter's take-no-prisoners rhetorical style -- and particularly on the "heartless" remarks about those 9/11 widows who seem to be "enjoying their husbands' deaths so much." Clearly, diplomatic language is not Coulter's forte, as one would also gather from this representative zinger: "I don't particularly care if liberals believe in God. In fact, I would be crestfallen to discover any liberals in heaven."
What undercuts the liberals' case against Coulter on this score, however, is their own (not always tacit) endorsement of vile epithets that are regularly directed against President Bush and his supporters by the likes of Cindy Sheehan, Michael Moore, and a gaggle of celebrity politicos. Coulter employs the same linguistic standard against liberals (with a touch of humor) that they regularly use (with somber faces and dogmatic conviction) when they accuse conservatives of being racist homophobes who gladly send youngsters to war under false pretences to line the pockets of Halliburton executives. Hate-speech of this stripe is old-hat for leftists.
Until Air America, Helen Thomas, and most Democrat constituencies alter their rhetoric, I see no reason for conservatives to denounce Coulter for using, more truthfully, the same harsh language that leftists have employed, with no regard for accuracy, since the time of Lenin. When liberals denounce communist tyrants as fervently as they do real Nazis, then it will be time for Coulter to cool the rhetoric. Until that time her "verbal reprisals" serve a useful function within an intellectual marketplace that resembles a commodities pit more than a debating society.
Richard Kirk is a freelance writer who lives in Oceanside, California. He is a regular columnist for San Diego's North County Times. His book reviews have also appeared in the American Enterprise Magazine, First Things, and Touchstone.
Atheism and evolution are not the same, but you must believe in evolution if you want to be an atheist. Atheists can not believe in a Creator by definition. If you had noticed the post I replied to asked "what does it matter where we came from?" It certainly matters where we came from.
That's not what evolution says.
It seems that the definition of what evolution says changes based on what is being discussed. But ultimately evolution describes the process of undirected mutations being either retained or discarded based on their ability to help the species survive. While some will stand on the belief that the initial materials and the rules were created by G-d, the primary claim is that the initial materials and rules were uncaused.
Even this is silly and fallacious.
How so? It is, in fact, a guiding philosophy for many. It's the driving force behind the sexual revolution with all the destructive results that has wrought.
Shalom.
No. It seems a perfectly valid argument to me. However, since you disagree, I doubt we have enough of a common basis on which to "argue" the point. You'll probably consider my arguments stupid so let's just not bother.
Shalom.
Awesome.
I would definitely liked to be pinged to your post.
I am sorry if I mischaracterized your post, intent, or perspective.
I believe in open discourse, and that not being allowed is my real beef with all of the things involved in this subject.
Methinks thou dost protest too much.
No you don't. There are atheists who don't. You should broaden your horizons.
Atheists can not believe in a Creator by definition.
That doesn't mean they have to pick evolution by default. There are many other origin beliefs, including considering it an unsolved mystery and remaining undecided on it. "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." -- Hamlet, Act 1 Scene 5, by William Shakespeare
If you had noticed the post I replied to asked "what does it matter where we came from?" It certainly matters where we came from.
Some folks disagree with you, and are more concerned about where we are and where we're headed, than in where we've been.
[That's not what evolution says.]
It seems that the definition of what evolution says changes based on what is being discussed.
It might look that way to people who aren't terribly familiar with it.
But ultimately evolution describes the process of undirected mutations being either retained or discarded based on their ability to help the species survive. While some will stand on the belief that the initial materials and the rules were created by G-d, the primary claim is that the initial materials and rules were uncaused.
No, sorry, evolutionary biology makes absolutely no statement, claim, or presumption on that matter. Evolutionary biology concerns how life changes once life exists, not how/where it came from, nor can it, since evolutionary processes require replication -- before the first living thing(s) were able to replicate, evolutionary processes were not and could not be involved. The origin of life is by definition outside of evolutionary biology, just as meteorology doesn't depend on, or make any statements on, where the atmosphere came from originally -- for that you have to switch to other fields of science.
That's not to say that there aren't a lot of evolutiony biologists interested in (or have opinions on) the question of the origin of life also, of course there are, but that doesn't turn the origin of life into a part of evolutionary biology.
Nor does evolutionary biology claim that there's necessarily no "outside intervention" from time to time. The "undirected" part of evolution just means that the natural process of evolution (i.e., what happens when no one's fiddling with it) is undirected -- nature doesn't "plan ahead". Many people mistake the methodological naturalism in science for philosophical naturalism -- it isn't. Put in simple terms, science is the investigation of how nature behaves when no one's screwing with it. It's discovery of how nature behaves on its own. It makes no statement about whether nature can be or has been messed with from time to time, just as studying the flow patterns of a particular river doesn't mean it can't be dammed. But the first step in dealing with the river, and deciding whether/how to dam it or otherwise live with it or make use of it, is to study how it works currently when left to itself. In the same way, science (including evolutionary biology) works to learn how nature behaves when left to its own devices. And left to its own devices, life evolves, and has evolved during the past billion-plus years.
[[then what we do to them doesn't matter. Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die.]]
[Even this is silly and fallacious.]
How so? It is, in fact, a guiding philosophy for many.
Including many Christians. Such behavior is more due to innate human desires than on any particular philosophy. And last time I checked, atheists had sex drives (and other kinds of desires) no stronger or weaker than those of Christians.
It's the driving force behind the sexual revolution with all the destructive results that has wrought.
There's a lot more to the sexual revolution than that, but you're getting farther afield -- even if "eat drink and be merry" is a "driving force behind the sexual revolution" (and you trivialize it if you think that's the whole story), that still doesn't help your thesis that hedonism is somehow a necessary consequence of atheism and/or evolution. It isn't.
As I wrote a while back in response to a similar argument:
If we deny that we are created beings (a creation must have a Creator), we have no accountability and an excuse to behave badly.
This is complete and utter nonsense. Even absent a creator, we still have accountability to others in our society. Behave badly, and pretty soon you're going to get the crap kicked out of you (literally or figuratively) -- and excuses about "it's in my nature" aren't going to fly.
If kin to apes, our primal desires to murder and breed are then instinctual.
...and so are our "primal desires" for cooperation, family and community bonds, love, caring for and protecting our children, defending our peers, etc. etc.
You really haven't thought this through at all, have you?
We are without guilt and free to roam and do as we please.
Horse manure. Even *apes* feel guilt, and fail to act as hedonistically and unrestrained as you ignorantly assume they "should". Get a clue.
Even apes understand that that sort of behavior is a recipe for disaster. And humans have even more of an ability to use their minds to understand why short-term selfish gains are *not* worthwhile or desirable strategies in the long run. Instead, cooperation, mutual altruism, "golden rule" ethics, and so on are vastly more effective ways to enhance even your *own* net benefits in a society, as well as the welfare of others. It's a win-win situation.
Duh. Even *apes* figure this out pretty fast as they grow up. What's *your* excuse?
Promiscuous sex, unwanted pregnancy, abortion (murder). The decline of the family... the decline of civilization.
Uh huh. Whatever you say.
Tell me, if it were somehow proven tomorrow that there wasn't a creator after all, would *you* suddenly start raping, killing, and pillaging? Yes or no? If Yes, shame on you, and you'd better have "fun" quick before you get shot or thrown in jail. If No, then realize you're not the only one with an actual brain and a conscience.
Methinks you don't have a decent rebuttal.
But I'll be sure to return the favor -- next time you're aggravated at Michael Moore's dishonesties, ping me so I can drop in and say, "Methinks thou dost protest too much"...
I'll add you to the ping list, and I'm sorry if I took your post the wrong way. Some folks are resistant to open discourse and I've gotten used to using a two-by-four to get their attention. ;-)
I don't have a problem with the part of the argument that says, "we can do nuclear power more safely than the Soviets did". The part I'm saying isn't valid is the "it could have been worse" part. You could make that irrelevant point about *anything*. "Well, Pearl Harbor could have been worse." "Well, 9/11 could have been worse." "Well, the Nazi genocide could have been worse." "Well, having your daughter raped and murdered and eaten could have been worse." Yeah, so? This adds absolutely nothing to any argument for or against nuclear power. The only thing it does is let her play sleight-of-hand and make the disaster seem "better" somehow, when thousands of dead is still thousands of dead, you can't sugar-coat that by chirping, "well, hey, we were worried there were going to be a lot more corpses!" That's about as vapid as it gets, and constitutes no kind of "argument" whatsoever -- if anything, it only reminds people of the possibility that the next one *could* be worse indeed, which strikes me as an odd kind of thing to bring up when you're arguing *for* nuclear power.
They're welcome to disagree. But if you don't know where you've been, you have no idea where you are.
As for the rest, based on the first few lines of your post I have read its like before. I am not interested in the discussion.
I recommend you decide I'm too stupid for the debate and allow me to be.
Shalom.
Id adds something to the method of arguing with the boy who cried wolf - if you can get him to listen.
Shalom.
When I was asked by some guy whether I believed that dogs evolved from wolves, I asked him whether he had ever been to the zoo. Then I said "did you see the wolves there?" "Yes" "I guess they haven't turned into dogs". He was well satistfied.
I just finished chapter 4, The Holiest Sacrament: Abortion. Ann provides so much, that no brief post can do justice to any of her chapters. Richard Kirk makes a good selection and comment in his article. Here's another. Ann quotes several pro-choice people as saying that "no one is for abortion." Ann responds to this in her own way. For myself, how can it be that we have 1.3 million abortions every year, when no one is for abortion? I understand that while no one is for slipping on the stairs, it happens. Slipping on stairs is normally an accident, not an act of volition. But few, if any, of the 1.3 million abortions are accidents. I imagine, pro-choice (NOT pro-abortion, please!) websites are posting volumes on Ann's supposed lies, errors, and stupidity. But volume and intensity do not alway impress.
Faith and proof are the extreme ends of a very long gradient. The theory of evolution is closer to the proof end. Just because overwhelming evidence is not absolute proof doesn't make it assumption based on faith.
Noted.
Still, can any reasonable person dispute the fact that assumptions abound, or that people adhere to their belief in evolution or creation or whatever because they espouse certain assumptions?
I mean, at some point, assume is the key word. You have to assume something in order to seriously hold a position.
It is syllogistic in nature.
Not true.
You apparently never heard of Buddha.
Again, that's BS.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.