Godless: The Church of Liberalism

Unlike most reviewers here panning the book, I actually read Ann Coulter's Godless in its entirety and enjoyed it very much. I even liked the outrageous humor. Sure, she goes over the top at times, maybe even tastelessly so. But in a country where adult ADD is on the rise and over-stimulation and hyper-hype are the norm in just about everything, maybe this is the only way she can get her point home (as argued here: [...] It's a little like shouting to be heard when everybody else is shouting.The problem for Coulter, though, ironically, is that by succumbing to temptations to give the groundlings in her audience some base humor, she gives her critics an opportunity to avoid addressing her arguments substantively. I can hear her counter: the liberals don't want to respond with reason and logic to argument, anyway. To judge by most of the "reviews" here, I'd have to say she's right. But c'mon, Coulter exaggerates. Surely somewhere in here there must be somebody who takes her soberly to task.For me, the most brilliant chapters of Godless are her deconstructions of Darwinism and its zealous, almost frenzied advocates. Though I am not ready to jump into bed with the creationists yet, Coulter does a good job of pointing out that both the Book of Genesis and Darwin's theory on the origin of species require great leaps of faith, and such objective scientific evidence that exists (such as the vast fossil record) is completely devoid of any proof of Darwin's hope that species evolve from one to another in a gradual, slow and completely random way. The proof, such as it is (i.e. the Cambrian and now - since the 1984 China discoveries - the pre-Cambrian fossil record) tends to prove just the opposite: that all currently living phyla descend from plants and animals that burst on the scene suddenly, with no visible precursors. And previously believed "missing links" (such as the "Piltdown Man" - a hoax) between man and monkey have evaporated over time, one by one. Darwinism may be right. Too bad there's no proof for it.As good as it is on the subject of Darwin's theory of evolution, Godless missed two morsels of Darwinania (neologism á la "Drunkennedy" Coulter uses for You Know Who) which she overlooked:1. Darwin on Darwin:"...Darwin was hopelessly divided on the question of the role of humanity in the universe. Although he is credited as the one who dethroned humanity from the center of the biological universe, he confessed in his autobiography concerning ' the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capacity for looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity.' He confided to a friend, 'My theology is simply a muddle.'" from Parallel Worlds (paperback), Michio Kaku, First Anchor Books Edition February 2006, New York; p. 344.So even though Coulter argues that liberals claim Darwin as their own Prophet of Godlessness, you really can't call Darwin a liberal. Would liberals ever admit to such self-doubt, or that their "theology is simply a muddle"?2. Alfred Russel WallaceMost people assume Darwin gets all the credit for coming up with the "discovery" of natural selection. But in the mid-1800s, Darwin and the English biologist Alfred Russel (yes, just one "l") Wallace independently came up with the idea. But unlike Darwin, Wallace concluded early on what an increasing number of biologists with integrity now see as plain common sense:"But in [stating that the mind needed evolution just as much as the body, Darwin] was deserted by many of his supporters, the psychologist William James being a notable exception. Alfred Russel Wallace, for example, the co-discoverer of the principle of natural selection, argued that the human mind was too complex to be the product of natural selection. It must instead be a supernatural creation...Wallace was remarkable for his time in being mostly devoid of racial prejudice. He had lived among natives of South America and southeast Asia, and he thought of them as equals, morally if not always intellectually. This led him to the belief that all races of humanity had similar mental abilities, which puzzled him because it implied that in most `primitive' societies, the great part of human intelligence went unused. What was the point of being able to read or do long division if you were going to spend all your life in a tropical jungle? Ergo, said Wallace, `some higher intelligence directed the process by which the human race was developed.'" The Agile Gene (paperback), Matt Ridley, Harper Perennial; Reprint edition (July 6, 2004), p. 10; this paragraph followed by footnote 5: "Quoted in Degler, C.N. 1991. In Search of Human Nature, Oxford University Press."So it looks like there was a schism in the Darwiniac papacy right from the get-go. Maybe Wallace lost out because he didn't have the right kind of publicist the trust-fund wealthy Darwin could afford (perhaps Darwin was a liberal, after all). But clearly, serious scientific endorsement of "intelligent design" is as old as - well, Darwin.By the way, Matt Ridley, author of The Agile Gene just quoted above, is one of those risk-avoidance academics Ann Coulter writes about. He recognizes genes act more like complex algorithms in even more vastly complex logic sequences (so that "the same gene" in mice, chickens or humans is involved in completely different kinds of biological activities, just as a piano played by Elton John sounds different from "the same piano" played by Murray Pariah). Genes are not Legos blocks, but switches that get turned on or off over carefully orchestrated time sequences, in concert with millions of other sequenced off-and-on switchings of some 30,000 other active genes in humans. That is one helluva piano, capable of infinite kinds of music. But in accounting for these "design" phenomena Ridley takes a nice, agnostic dodge, calling these sublime interactions of genes and proteins the work of the "Genome Organizing Device," or "GOD" for short. Cute, huh? At least it's a nod in the right direction. He could have chosen something that works with NOW or NAMBLA.

Whatever else you might say about this book it is a riveting read. I was genuinely bereft when it finished!While I admit the book has a serious purpose, it is also very entertaining. The language used is often hyperbolic, full of new and interesting words and a 'no holds barred' approach. I suspect that part of Ann Coulter's aim is to infuriate her opponents. No doubt she does.The themes of the book are very introduced and covered and most are fairly well argued. Well ok very well argued. There are lots of references. Most are in news articles but the few that I looked up seemed real (if hard to believe - like Greens wanting to abolish flush toilets)[...]Some of the assertions seemed a bit of a stretch to my world view, such as the total demolition of Darwin's Theory of Evolution as an explaination for our world. Still it made me think. It is certainly hard to explain why the ACLU would sue a school district in Cobb County for putting a sticker urging students to study evolution with an open mind. And how they could win.Contrast that with the "Hot, Sexy, and Safer" presentation Coulter says was given at a school (which forced its teenagers to attend) by a 5-times married woman from a broken family, whose mother committed suicide and whose father physically abused her. The presentation included getting male students to show their "orgasm faces" in front of a camera. Parents who complained lost their case in court.Coulter talks repeatedly about Liberals wanting to destroy human life through abortion, embyonic stem cell research and promotion of dodgy lifestyles. But I must have missed the bit where she explained why they have their views, so it didn't make a lot of sense to me. Is she suggesting that Liberals are evil, or just misguided?It probably helps to be heartily sick of liberals before you read this book. That way you can work yourself into towering rage before each chapter and then enjoy Coulter's skewering of each of your tormenters.Still Coulter really does have a way with words, which may even raise a brief grin amongst her opponents. Where else can you read:'relying on self-reports of how many hours someone works is like relying on teenage boys' self-reports about how much sex they're having (90 percent say they have had sex, 60 percent with Pamela Anderson)''Liberals aren't demanding that taxpayer money be used for research on toenail clippings: that would not advance their governing principle, which is to always kill human life (unless the human life being killed is likely to fly a plane in to American skyscrapers, in which case, it is wrong to kill it)''Priests: 820 abused children per year; educators: 32,000 abused children per year. For those of you who went to public schools, 32,000 is greater than 820'Or of Larry Summer's speech which resulting in him being fired from Harvard: 'Some of the women paired off and went to the ladies' room to discuss possible responses. Others went on eating binges. Most chose to just sit there sobbing. A quick show of hands revealed that every woman in attendance needed a hug.'Anyway this should give you an idea as to whether you will like this book. I liked it enormously, even the parts I didn't agree with. Perhaps that is Coulter's talent.

Coulter's fifth book, published by Crown Forum in 2006, is Godless: The Church of Liberalism.In this book, she argues, first, that American Liberalism rejects the idea of God and reviles people of faith, and second, that it bears all the attributes of a religion itself. All of these claims are accurate.But I feel like this could have been better. If the whole book expanded deep into chapter 10: "The Scientific Method of Stoning and Burning", this could have been a classic due to the fact that Neo-Darwinists (Darwinism is completely dead now) do persecute, censor, and punish anyone that may disagree with them, as the famous documentary "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" (2008) showed.Coulter could've anticipated this phenomenon that has now permeated Academia since Intelligence Design has taken Natural Sciences by storm.Now, you can't even mention Intelligence Design, not even imply that is remotely scientific. Whether you are inside a high school classroom or getting your Ph.D., Neo-Darwinists will find you and punish you if you dare question the Evolution Mythos.I believe this has happened so many times now that you can literally write a trilogy just to mention the legal cases where scientists have been persecuted and expelled from schools at all educational levels because they dare to even name those two prohibited words: Intelligence Design.Godless debuted at number one on the New York Times Best Seller list.

What can you say about Ann Coulter? The left hate her (that's a good thing!) and the rest of us just adore her. She presents her ideas with such intelligence, wit, and humor that her books are a breeze to read. Infuriating at times when you realize what the left has done and gotten away with, but always a good read. Ann is my new hero!

... Ann Coulter is a A-rated writer with brilliant writing skills that draws you right into the issues raised in very well composed grammatics. Her choices of words leaves you in awe ofher! This book exposes the FAKENESS of the American Libtards ("retarded Left") aka The Democrats that reveres creatures rather than The Creator, even though the Democrat Party has fooled many to think that they are believers of God.....'not so' - screamed out loud, Ann! :0 The book is beautifully written and easy to read.

Excellent! A "radiography" of the satanic sect called liberalism! Dogma, doctrine, modus operandi and how they self-proclaim to the world (obviously with enough cynicism, lies and phrases cliches)

タイトルは、反語です。表紙は、godlessではなくgoddessのような印象を与えるほどです。でも、この作品の面白さは、アメリカの社会と政治とその中でいつも論議となっている争点（abortionと進化論）に、それなりに通じていないと理解できないと思います。政治や外交を扱った前作の”treason”とは違い、今回は、中身をfollow していくのがやっとで、パンチの効いた彼女独特のジョークや攻撃も十分に味わうことはできませんでした。また彼女の議論のベースとなっているのが、キリスト教の神とその秩序の下での人間観なので、これに免疫のない私たち日本人には、これらの議論がアメリカ人にとって持つ切迫性を感じとることは、おそらくありえないでしょう。環境問題と絡めての著者の多神教についての攻撃も、環境問題自体への疑問の提示は別として、独善的な印象を与えるものです。それでも前半の犯罪やabortionの部分は、それなりについていくことはできますが、後半の進化論とintelligent designの部分になるともうお手上げです。この部分での著者の論理と論理が指し示す帰結（ドストエフスキーの大作のテーマ）については納得することはできます。でも、進化論の背後に潜む世界観への生理的な恐怖感を共有することのない日本人には、著者を促す情熱は、別世界の出来事としてしか意識されることはありません。おそらく翻訳されることもないでしょう。