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.
I see you are using the ""'s method. Kewl!
You sound like you have a good head on your shoulders. Please explain how GPS works ... That should be right up your line! No cutting and pasting - right out of your head.
How could we convince you of evolution. No amount of rational thought would do that since you are locked into an irrational belief.
If the ding had blue paint was at the exact height of a Ford Explorer's bumper, had rubber marks consistent with a Ford Explorer's bumper molding and if I took the paint flakes down to the lab ad it was confirmed that they were from a paint used by Ford in 1990 only, I could conclude with a great deal of certainty that I was hit by a 1990 Ford Explorer. I may not know which one, but I would have a pretty specific idea.
That is not a "guess" it is a working theory based onthe facts available to me. I may not know exactly that it is what happened, but I am pretty sure a "competing" theory that the dent just materialized would be wrong (and I can also rule out your "guess" whatever it is if you don't have the research available to you).
I'm not sure I understand how you're addressing this. G-d can't be removed from the mix. He exists. What I'm saying is that if He didn't exist then there would be no reason to care about morality. What we would have, instead, is social conventions that can change on a whim. There is no reason to prefer taking care of sick children to the Spartan convention of leaving them to die of exposure. Can you provide a justification? Can you provide a justification for taking care of the elderly instead of sending them off to die so they won't consume resources? Can you provide a justification for taking care of anyone, rather than demanding that only the strong survive?
My observation is that this places the essence of humans firmly within that of the other animals but not within the 'image of God'.
Are you making a distinction between whether G-d exists or whether man believes in him? I'm honestly confused. If G-d doesn't exist then man doesn't have an 'image of G-d.'
If man was created in the image of God what would cause him to, or decide to, act immorally?
Pride. That much is consistent throughout human history.
Of course we don't, because they are not part of our community structure. Our moral sense developed in the interactions of humans to humans; if we include animals in that it is through an expansion of our family group.
If we are of the same essence, why not?
What makes you believe that animals are incapable of constructing their own moral guidelines?
Lack of evidence.
The nearer the species is to our level of intelligence, and the more community based they are, the more complex the interactions and the more 'thought' goes into the formation of individual limitations of action within the group. This 'moral code' has been observed in Chimp communities both in captivity and in the wild. This isn't to say that their code is not far more primative than ours but since their intellect is not as developed as ours we shouldn't expect their code to be as advanced.
There is a huge difference between generally accepted mores and a moral code. What you describe falls into the former category. In that category, Soylent Green is not wrong as long as it meets a purpose and everyone is OK with it. Drowning your children is not wrong as long as it meets a purpose and everyone is OK with it. Offing your elderly parents is not wrong as long as it meets a purpose and everyone is OK with it.
In fact, nothing is wrong as long as it meets a purpose and everyone is OK with it.
And you're OK with that?
Shalom.
The Bible says "Thou shalt not kill" - unless it meets a purpose ....
Apparently you are.
Go rent a copy of Eating Raoul.
2DNA scientist Crick could not accept evolution, apparently as not explaining the complexity of DNA. Did Ann invent this quote?
Also, are these two scientists know-nothing creationists?
Two interesting quotes from Ann's book. 1. Eminent scientist and astronomer Sir Fred Hoyles said he couldn't accept evolution, as too improbable (apparently from a statistics and probability perspective). Did Ann invent this quote? 2. DNA human genome scientist Sir Francis Crick could not accept evolution, apparently as not explaining the complexity of DNA. Did Ann invent this quote? Also, are these two scientists know-nothing creationists?
Sir Fred Hoyle a mathematician and astronomer calculated that the probability of one simple enzyme forming by chance is 10 to the power of 20 (one with twenty zeros behind it), to 1. Hence for one cell to form, about 2000 enzymes are needed, which makes the probability of the first self replicating cell forming by random movement of atoms as 10 to the power of 40000 to 1. One bitter critic of Hoyle begrudgingly says that that this figure is 'probably not overly exaggerated'.
It has been said that this is as likely as a cyclone going through a junkyard and producing a fully functional jumbo jet.
People do say that if you allow enough time, anything can happen. However, at best we have about 4.6 billion years to work with. If Sir Fred Hoyle's calculated probability was for a cell to form in say the next second then the probability of a cell forming in 4.6 billion years is still about 10 to the power of 39982 to 1. If it was for a microsecond, the probability would be 10 to the power of 39976 to 1. If it was for a picosecond, the probability would be 10 to the power of 39970 to 1.
There are approximately 10 to the power of 80 atoms in this universe.
It is also claimed that life came from another planet. Nobel Prize winner Francis Crick recognised the problem of the extremely low probability that life could come from non-life on earth. He concluded that the earth was not old enough, and postulated that life may have come from another planet. Hence in order for us then to have a 1000 to 1 chance of life forming by itself, (and lets assume that an asteroid will definitely take the life to earth) there would need to be roughly 10 to the power of 38970 planets out there (fairly close to us) capable of supporting life.
But are Fred Hoyles calculation's correct? It would be dangerous just to assume that his calculations were. A more recent claim details that biogenesis (the formation of life from non-life) is not reliant on the random movement of atoms, but is a natural process, just as hydrogen and oxygen atoms naturally attract to form water. But, if this is the case, what are the chances of the 'Big Bang' producing the atoms that would behave in such a fashion that they would naturally form amino acids and proteins, which in turn would naturally come together to form life?
Sorry for misgauging the thickness of your skin. Alright, and for the intemperate use of "loon". It was only intended as a light hearted way of saying, "of course I disagree with LS about the evolution issue." I do in fact think the antievolution position is "looney," but I shouldn't have personalized it.
In any case I was pinging you because of your expertise as an historian. That wasn't a cheap shot. I thought you might know something about the history of the evolution controversies and have some insight on the question of motivations that saleman had raised. But if not, then fine.
Leave me out of your own looney evolutionist discussions.
Sorry, but it was YOUR choice to enter the thread, and to focus on the evolution aspect. (#25) In fact you continued to do so immediately after this reply to me! (#329)
If you really want to be left out of the evolution discussions you need to leave yourself out in the first instance. Otherwise, why complain?
The invalidity of this argument
2NA scientist Crick could not accept evolution, apparently as not explaining the complexity of DNA. Did Ann invent this quote?
Bogus quote -- scroll down to Quote#74.
The renowned Sir Fred has been known to have had the limb cut out from under some of his other "great ideas" in the past. Besides, here he is out of his expertise if he is discussion evolution.
His reputation it that he comes up with a lot of ideas, many wrong, and hangs on to those ideas too long while science keeps marching ahead leaving him in his isolated little world of misconception.
Since I didn't see a quote, I have no idea. However, it appears that, based on your presentation, she is distorting his views:
In Crick’s view, Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection, Gregor Mendel’s genetics and knowledge of the molecular basis of genetics, when combined, reveal the secret of life [7].
I think you pinged the wrong guy. I'm the evolutionist who got the fight started on this thread.
It is Hoyle, not Hoyles. Hoyles, the imminent science fiction writer.
Also, are these two scientists know-nothing creationists?
Actually, Hoyle's hypothesis was that life came to earth on comets. I guess that would take him off the "creationist" list ...
As I understand it, you are saying that Ann is using Sir FH to support the idea that evolution is not possible. Well, let's look at some of his writings. Perhaps you can now see why we are laughing at how y'all are falling for her glib.
With Chandra Wickramasinghe, his former student, he wrote among others Lifecloud (1978), on the origin of disease, and Diseases from Space (1979) and Evolution from Space (1981). In these works he argued that organic molecules from comets are deposited on Earth during close encounters or impacts, they join the gene pool and make evolution possible.
So, according to you, you and Ann support the idea that viruses came to earth from comet to help jump-start the evolution of life on earth.
"A more recent claim details that biogenesis (the formation of life from non-life) "
Apparently your author has a problem with scientific accuracy.
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.