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.
My father didn't have to yell. Oh no.
His rhetoric was razor sharp as it was, it didn't need any extra wind or volume.
So tell me, exactly why don't you "buy" evolution? Be specific. I can almost guarrantee just about any view you hold of it is based upon faulty knowledge.
You said that evolution would not destroy the narrative of Christianity, but then you were not really able to back that up with anything other than growth in religion is tied to science.
I'll give you the last word here, 'cause I have no science background to speak of, and as a result communication between us would be pointless.
First, what do you consider the narrative of Christianity. That Eve ate an apple as you provided in your example? We don't even know if it was an apple but you are forming it as a fact. Isn't the narrative of Christianity salvation? Does it matter whether the story of Adam and Eve is literally true or just man's way of describing the origin of man and the glory of God. It makes no difference. Does it matter whether there are 'four corners' to the world as stated in the bible or whether that is just the common language of man in that time. It makes no difference to the Christian narrative of salvation. Does it make a difference on how God created man? Not really. Does evolution falsify the Bible? Not really.
I tried to explain. Just as heliocenticity did not destroy the message of Christianity, Evolution will not destroy th message of Christianity. Religion is always in transition. The threats to a congregation usually do not come from the outside but from the inside; not from science but from the struggle over domination of the congregations. Those religions that are able to grow with science will survive. Those that cannot, will not survive, at least survive as a significant religion. We still have those flat-earthers and geocentrists but they are relegated to the looney bin by most.
I think you got that line from one of your creationist websites, not from me.
I've just been kinda following along, but from my viewpoint you clarified what you believed Ann's point was in your post #129:
FWIW: I understood Ann's argument to be:The worst possible nuclear disaster created by some of the worst possible nuclear engineers on the planet didn't come close to being the disaster it was predicted to be. Therefore, we should be allowed to pursue nuclear power in the U.S., where we have the best possible nuclear engineers on the planet.
Ichneumon responded directly to your interpretation in his post #137. You can (and did) disagree with his argument, but it didn't miss Ann's point as described by you. Feel free to refute the argument, but dismissing it as if it missed the point seems to be nothing more than ducking the issue.
(Ichneumon pinged as a courtesy.)
I know you are but what am I! ;)
Wow, you were able to translate the bible down to two sentences. I'm impressed.
Many think the message is a bit deeper than that, though.
The interesting thing about ignorance is that when one "accidentally" exposes it, it is because they don't know they are exposing it
That is another logical fallacy. I suppose you believe that since Hitler liked dogs, any dog lover is a Nazi. It is a bit deeper than that.
Actually, I am getting the feeling that a lot of things in life are deeper than you think they are.
>>Perhaps you would like to explain what it is 'about'.<<
The relationship God desires with man. He actually seeks us out, you know...
The word "evolution" has too many meanings. Some evolution teachings DO go in direct contradiction to Christianity while others don't.
I find it funny that people say there is so much proof for "evolution" Let's be frank here. Other than everything being created, what other possible explanation for our existence is even within our comprehension other than some form of evolotion. That is why it is so firmly grasped by those that are opposed to the Christian message. It's all they got, and they embrace it with all their intellect and will not easily give up even the slightest concession.
It is what causes SOME of them to look somewhat silly in debates.
>>Judeo Christian tradition ...
You are correct. But if you read your bible you will discover that Jesus did not have a lot of good things to say about man made traditions. You could march out the KKK just as easily and say it is proof of the problem of Christianity.
Instead of looking at what flawed men tried to get the bible to say on their behalf, why don't you read it yourself and see what it has to say about those things?
It is interesting that the more we know, the more evolution theory has to change to fit the "evidence". "They" still don't really know what to change because of the T-Rex soft tissue.
I don't know how you got from my post to your post. You excperted my post to 3 words which makes it impossible to tell what you are referring to.
Do you not think Buddha lived a moral life or taught a moral code?
Depends on how you define moral. I firmly believe many Nazi's thought they were living by a moral code and lived a moral life.
If we were not created with a purpose, the word moral really has no reference. It is as another poster said, " It is like trying to navigate a ship by the lantern at the top of the mast." That is really an excellent way to put it. Wish I'd thought of it.
It's not about science. It is about evolution, specifically.
Which ones?
What is our 'purpose'?
Yep. If you will notice, Christianity is unique from ALL other religions on the planet in very key aspects. In fact, it is unique in its key foundational teachings.
That is no small thing.
If you go to the ID sites, they talk about the evils of SCIENCE and materialism. This ID/evo thing is just a wedge.
If you go to the Islamic sites they talk about the evils of SCIENCE and materialism. This ID/evo thing is just their wedge.
Can it be spelled anymore clearly? The wedge is to remove the Christian God from ID and make Islam the acceptable alternative to the impressionable minds in school.
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.