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.
Who writes your stuff?
You are aware that there are many 'evolutionists' that believe God produced the BB? You must also be aware that there are many 'evolutionists' who believe that God created the first life? You see that is because Evolution follows the initial tenets put forward by Darwin; as such, Evolution can only deal with life. However, even though the term evolution can be applied to a number of non-biological systems such as the Universe and stars, the acceptance of Evolution does not preclude one from believing in a God or his/her influence in the start of the Universe and life.
If you want to argue Cosmology or Abiogenesis then do so, including them as part of Evolution in order to bolster your attack is of course nothing but the creation of a strawman.
Personally I believe that the Universe did come about out of nothing in the BB simply because a cause and effect relationship did not hold at that time. There is no need for that relationship without the 'arrow of time'. Once the universe existed nothing else had to be produced 'out of nothing'.
But that's just me.
"If I say "I don't know how my car got a dent in it" that does NOT imdicate in any way, shape or form that a valid "theory" for the dent was little green men in spaceships. I can formulate a reasonable theory based on the size and shape of the ding, where and when it occurred, etc. EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS."
Yep, you sure can. But you would still be guessing. And If I formulated a "resonable theory" 180 degrees out of phase with yours I would be guessing. So who's right. Of course you think you are. And I think I am. So heeeere we go!
That statement, in the context of OmahaFields' statement, suggests that you have read the book. If that is indeed the case could you please enumerate the number of cites that are from the NYT and compare that number to the cites from primary research?
Hey!! I'll have some of what you're having!
I thought you were hanging? What happened?
Great post about Hitler/Christianity. LOL. PLease add me to your ping list re: Coulter/Evolution.
Nilsen said Friday he didn't think the district's approach to intelligent design would get as involved as it did. He originally envisioned teachers making only passing references to the concept in biology class.
"No one had ever said we would ignore or modify the state standards on evolution," he said.
But when teachers started asking how to implement it, the district developed the statement to be read in class.
Under cross-examination, plaintiffs' attorney Eric Rothschild asked Nilsen about a reference "Of Pandas and People" made to a "master intellect" as the origin of life on Earth. He said that, in a pretrial deposition, Nilsen had said he thought that "could only mean God or aliens."
"Is that your idea of good pedagogy?" Rothschild asked.
Nilsen replied, "Good pedagogy is to give them (students) the understanding that people believe that is true and to give them other options."
"I understood his concerns would be that the theory is treated like a fact, a reality," Baksa said. "It's mentioned so many times in the book that it biases students to accept it as a fact."
Well common descent of species is pretty much pinned down by solid evidence - that's the "what happened" question. The best current explaination for the "how it happened" question is descent with modification via known genetic mechanisms and natural selection. We have observed this mechanism produce small changes on the short term.
Behe and other IDists are really arguing over the "how it happened" question. The problem is that Ann seems to be arguing over the "what happened" question as well. Ie her arguments are half Behe-style Intelligent Design and half creationism. One difference is that Ann and creationists deny there are any transitional forms wheras Behe style IDists generally would not. The problem is that her position is therefore a lot weaker than Behe's because there are obvious transitional forms which Behe is wise enough not to deny.
Behe style IDists do not accept genetic mechanisms can explain common descent. Well at least to a degree they don't. Obviously they accept "microevolution" and I imagine they accept some degree of macroevolution too. It's not at all clear about their precise position. It probably varies between individuals.
They are arguing is that certain structures cannot be the result of the evolutionary mechanism of modification and natural selection. They pick particularly extreme examples (which is why the ID position on less extreme examples - such as evolution of whales from land mammals - is subjective). But they are making a criticism of evolutionary mechanisms rather than constructing an alterantive explaination. They claim that this means an alternative explaination is correct: They are arguing that the only alternative is intelligent intervention every few million years in which an unknown designer tinkers with an existing organism for unknown purpose to create a new one. But it's just too vague to be a scientific explaination really. It isn't at all testable. So ultimately they are only really arguing against the mechanisms of evolution rather than building an alternative explaination.
The argument you cite that "the various facets of the mechanism need each other to operate - so evolving independent of each other is logically difficult to comprehend" does have a solution under evolution which is not logically difficult to comprehend. This involves the parts of the system originally having different functions, so that they did happen to develop in parallel and only later did they "combine" to form an irreducible system with new function in which we can see taking any part away results in loss of function of the whole system.
"I ain't smart.
"I just want to be able to talk about this stuff.
"That is it. That is what I want.
I surely don't remember calling you stupid. If I thought you were too stupid to understand what I posted I would have addressed my post to the lurkers. This notion that a stupid dumb ass judge should decide what a biology teacher should be allowed to teach (ON MY FREAKING DIME) is what is pissing me off in this whole business.
As much as that may be true you expressed that thought as an attack on the SToE and the scientists who contribute. Though out this thread you have claimed the judge made an error because Evolution is nothing but a religion (as if being a religion is an insult) but you have given no indication that you understand the difference between a religion and a science. Perhaps if you clarified your stance that Evolution is a religion by explaining what a religion is and how Evolution fits the profile?
"Does anybody understand my point at all or do cars still love Shell?
Your point is that both Evolution and ID have equivalent standing as sciences and as subjects for science class making the judges decision to exclude ID a form of fascism.
The only problem with that idea is that while Evolution (the SToE) is a science ID has yet to produce any scientific work. This lack of work is why IDists want to change the definition of science.
They simply aren't equivalent.
However, as Dr. Haught testified, anyone familiar with Western religious thought would immediately make the association that the tactically unnamed designer is God, as the description of the designer in Of Pandas and People (hereinafter “Pandas”) is a “master intellect,” strongly suggesting a supernatural deity as opposed to any intelligent actor known to exist in the natural world. (P-11 at 85). Moreover, it is notable that both Professors Behe and Minnich admitted their personal view is that the designer is God and Professor Minnich testified that he understands many leading advocates of ID to believe the designer to be God. (21:90 (Behe); 38:36-38 (Minnich)).
Although proponents of the IDM occasionally suggest that the designer could be a space alien or a time-traveling cell biologist, no serious alternative to God as the designer has been proposed by members of the IDM, including Defendants’ expert witnesses. (20:102-03 (Behe)). In fact, an explicit concession that the intelligent designer works outside the laws of nature and science and a Case 4:04-cv-02688-JEJ Document 342 Filed 12/20/2005 Page 25 of 139
5 Defendants contend that the Court should ignore all evidence of ID’s lineage and religious character because the Board members do not personally know Jon Buell, President of the Foundation for Thought and Ethics (hereinafter “FTE”), the publisher of Pandas, or Phillip Johnson, nor are they familiar with the Wedge Document or the drafting history of Pandas.
Defendants’ argument lacks merit legally and logically. The evidence that Defendants are asking this Court to ignore is exactly the sort that the court in McLean considered and found dispositive concerning the question of whether creation science was a scientific view that could be taught in public schools, or a religious one that could not. The McLean court considered writings and statements by creation science advocates like Henry Morris and Duane Gish, as well as the activities and mission statements of creationist direct reference to religion is Pandas’ rhetorical statement, “what kind of intelligent agent was it [the designer]” and answer: “On its own science cannot answer this question. It must leave it to religion and philosophy.” (P-11 at 7; 9:13-14 (Haught)).
This is the crap the school board was sending to EVERY household before they were sued. No wonder they became a target!
“Some have said that before Darwin, ‘we thought a benevolent God had created us. Biology took away our
status as made in the image of God’ . . . or ‘Darwinism made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.’” Id.
Finally and notably, the newsletter all but
admits that ID is religious by quoting Anthony Flew, described as a “world famous atheist who now believes in intelligent design,” as follows: “My whole life has
been guided by the principle of Plato’s Socrates: Follow the evidence where it leads.” Id.
The Discovery Institute, the think tank promoting ID whose CRSC developed the Wedge Document, acknowledges as “Governing Goals” to “defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies” and “ replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.”
Boy, you sure are getting your wish!
Really? What is to be sorry about?
It sounds like you are saying that since God is the source of all morals the only thing standing in the way of humans acting like base animals (not to mention that there are animals that don't always 'act like animals') is the fear of whatever consequences God arranges for those that disobey, or in some way God 'controls' the actions of those that believe. Even though you didn't say this explicitly, that is the implication of your statement.
You're right. I didn't explicitly say that. I also don't believe it. There are other alternatives. Most believers understand there are a wide range of responses to G-d. The primary one is love and a desire to please Him because of who He is and what He has done.
Contrary to what most believers desire - that humans are essentially not animals but a special creation made in the image of God, this worry of yours is an implicit acknowledgment of our origin as just another animal.
Actually, animals have no moral obligations whatsoever. If human beings were merely animals it wouldn't matter whether we were moral or not. Does anyone hold a beaver accountable if building his dam wipes out a species of fish?
Except that along with all the other evolutionary changes wrought in the human being is the act of selfless cooperation and community.
Yes, I've read "The Selfless Gene." It was written by someone who really wanted to believe it made sense. But it doesn't.
Without a belief in God, many of the same morals and sense of right and wrong would accompany every community built by humans.
I don't buy it. History doesn't support that statement at all. Human communities have been able to come up with all sorts of moralities. Just ask steve-b, who wanted to blame Christians for thinking the same way as those who flew airplanes into the WTC.
All humans in all communities, including those we would consider extremely primitive have a set of moral actions that are part and parcel of their culture. The majority of the morals we attend to in our culture is a direct result of the size and complexity of our culture and would have developed even if God wasn't a part of the population's psyche. (Every culture, including the Christian culture has had times where other humans have suffered at the hands of the adherents as well as times of peace and enlightenment)
Actually, if you look at history, the Jewish contribution to civilization is unique. You can't imagine an atheistic civilization that is not tempered by Judeo-Christian virtues because you have not ever seen one. Even those who claim that they know many atheists who are better people than most Christians are using a Christian definition of what a good person is to make their judgement.
But stick around - Western Civilization will show you just what man is capable of without G-d, if Islam lets us survive that long.
Shalom. Shalom.
Can I call you when an atheist ruler kills between 25 and 100 million people to secure his rule?
Shalom.
Man didn't hold man responsible for building dams and wiping out species, either - 50 years ago...
I think most of those definitions pre-date Christianity.
Doesn't Islam believe in the same God? I know that they are now pushing ID in the schools singing the same "anti-materialistic" mantra pushed by the ID crowd and stating that finally "western theology" is getting it right with acceptance of the ID philosophy. Perhaps you shouldn't worry about the west becoming Godless but worry about how ID destroys your concept of creation.
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.