Brain Food (Amazingthing about Godless is the amount of intellectual meat Ann Coulter has packed...)

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.

Yea, I understand. But why should something that doesn't matter in the whole theater of life be such a divisive issue?

I mean, I understand it matters to many people. But what would happen if, say, someday Jesus appears or some inarguable evidence comes to light proving creationism or evolution? So what? I guess the creationist or evolutionist would get to say Nah-Nah-Nah but other that that what's the point?

We might try asking LS. He's an antievolutionist loon when it comes to biology (YMMV) but he's mainly an historian and may know something about the development of the controversy.

I could recommend a few books, but you might not be that interested.

"If you believe you can articulate a persuasive basis for morality absent God, that would be a positive contribution. I would be interested in what you have to say."

The basis of biology and evolution is survival of the species. Anyone acting immoral threatens the species thus the members of the species would 'reinforce' to him that he was not acting in the interest of the species. From many such interactions over eons, a moral code would develop.

Thanks for a reply. I have heard that before and understand it. Imagine someone who knows this argument, understands it, accepts it. Furthermore this person thinks religion is bunk, that there is no god, no afterlife, no final judgment, etc. Perhaps this person imagines himself to be highly intelligent, sophisticated, (pats self on back) and is beyond being fooled by the morality of people he considers religious cultists (pats self on back again). This person is in a position of power. You might imagine Bill Clinton, or Mao Tse Dung, Idi Amin, or some other person of great power. Try imagining your worst case. I don’t see why the person that I have described would refrain from taking what he wants.

You can no more prove Evolution or Darwinism than can an IDer or a creationist prove their position.

Why do you keep running this same gambit when you have been disproved on so many threads? We have directly observed micro evolution. Macro evolution results from a very combination of conclusions drawn from physical and factual evidence, including what has been observed in micro evolution.

ID and Creationism are simply faith-based. Somewhere along the line you need to say "a miracle happens here" which requires a Deity or other supernatural force. Science cannot and does not depend on supernatural forces.

What gets me is you keep saying over and over when when you have been presented with facts to the contrary. Are you 10 years old or something?

Your anecdote was interesting, but I'm unclear where you were going with it.

If you want to imply with sinister intent that God looks like somebody...well then welcome to my attitude toward stupid blow hards.

I didn't mean to imply anything. My question was legitimate. There are Christians on this board who believe that " created in His image" means PHYSICAL image. I don't. In fact, I do not like the idea of God "looking" like ANYBODY. I would consider it something close to blasphemous.

I believe that the part of us that is in God's likeness is our soul, not our body. Even when I called myself a Christian I believed that. I actually thought every Christian believed that and was surprised to find that some don't.

Thanks for a reply. It is as expected that those that are irrational make personal attacks against the person that posts rational responses totally void of personal attack.

But I don't mind. I am used to being called a liberal, homo-recruiting Nazi from the irrational when the irrational has no capability for rational response. You did, however, forget the part where I will burn in Hell for all eternity. Or, you could get totally with it and mention that my Buddhist wife will be crispy toast. Thanks again. I look forward to your future insults and slurs.

I meant no insult. I don't even see where I provided one.

Let me repost your response. You associated me with all the evil in the world. I really like that "imagine the worst case" part.

I have heard that before and understand it. Imagine someone who knows this argument, understands it, accepts it. Furthermore this person thinks religion is bunk, that there is no god, no afterlife, no final judgment, etc. Perhaps this person imagines himself to be highly intelligent, sophisticated, (pats self on back) and is beyond being fooled by the morality of people he considers religious cultists (pats self on back again). This person is in a position of power. You might imagine Bill Clinton, or Mao Tse Dung, Idi Amin, or some other person of great power. Try imagining your worst case. I don’t see why the person that I have described would refrain from taking what he wants.

ArGee: I'm not sure of your point. In your opinion what is morality based upon?

stands2reason: Upon whether there is a God or not.

Good answer. But wouldn't it be more accurate to say that it's based upon whether G-d Himself is moral? Or, more clearly, that G-d has declared what is right and what is wrong, and by His moral character has shown Himself to be a valid source?

I would propose that the entire story of Adam and Eve and the Fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil is about just this question. Is morality something that man can know on his own? Has he the ability to know all possible ramifications of a decision to know whether it will result in good or evil? Can he, as Gandalf suggested, know all ends? Or is he dependent on a good, all-knowing Creator to tell him what is good and what is evil?

By eating of the fruit, Adam and Eve declared they could figure it out for themselves. G-d allowed them to make that choice, and in so doing they destroyed paradise.

But I believe this to be true because I believe G-d exists, that G-d created this universe and all that is in it, and that the Bible tells the story of G-d's relationship to Man.

If G-d does not exist, if G-d did not create this universe, if it is all an accident, then there is no morality. In that case, the Bible is an interesting book, but no more able to help us know how we should treat each other than our gut instincts.

This is why I say "If man is an accident then it doesn't matter how we treat each other."

I hope I have been clear about what I believe.

Shalom.

"ID and Creationism are simply faith-based.."

Do they have mirrors where you live?

Can you read?

My "Raison D'etre" on these threads is because I am pissed off that stupid Judges are decreeing things that are not logically justifiable.

Somewhere along the line, an evolutionists has to acknowledge that something came from nothing in order to support their RELIGION!

I don't care which position you take.

I do not want the Courts forbidding people from debating all of the positions.

That is what you do, and that is what you support.

You are Fascist!

I really have no response to your post but it brought to my mind Proverbs 10

19 When words are many, sin is not absent, but he who holds his tongue is wise. 20 The tongue of the righteous is choice silver, but the heart of the wicked is of little value. 21 The lips of the righteous nourish many, but fools die for lack of judgment. 22 The blessing of the LORD brings wealth, and he adds no trouble to it. 23 A fool finds pleasure in evil conduct, but a man of understanding delights in wisdom.

The basis of biology and evolution is survival of the species. Anyone acting immoral threatens the species thus the members of the species would 'reinforce' to him that he was not acting in the interest of the species. From many such interactions over eons, a moral code would develop.

Thanks for a reply. I have heard that before and understand it. Imagine someone who knows this argument, understands it, accepts it. Furthermore this person thinks religion is bunk, that there is no god, no afterlife, no final judgment, etc. Perhaps this person imagines himself to be highly intelligent, sophisticated, (pats self on back) and is beyond being fooled by the morality of people he considers religious cultists (pats self on back again). This person is in a position of power. You might imagine Bill Clinton, or Mao Tse Dung, Idi Amin, or some other person of great power. Try imagining your worst case. I don’t see why the person that I have described would refrain from taking what he wants.

I'll jump in here, and start by adding some points to the biological argument for the origin of morality.

It starts, I think, once an animal possesses sufficient mental attainment to observe, decode and (especially) remember the behavior of others in its group. Now when a group member habitually "cheats" or behaves "unfairly" other members will punish it, maybe by reducing its status in the group, or exiling it from the group, or even by killing it.

Once this is going on there's an evolutionary pressure to develop an "instinct" of morality, and an evolutionary reward for doing so. Even a very clever creature can't think through the ins and outs and consequences of the thousands upon thousands of social interactions it encounters every day, so this has to work like an instinct, an inbuilt sense of right and wrong behavior.

So the answer to your question is that the average person probably wouldn't do the things you describe because they would violate his or her sense of morality. The ones would do such things are pathological; mentally deformed in some way. I mean that's the biological answer as well as the commonsense one.

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.