Some time back I reviewed a book by conservative columnist Ann Coulter. It wasn’t a complete review, because I was only interested in Coulter’s take on creationism. She seemed to be for it. I still have the book, and I figured it was time for me to read all of the book and obtain a feel for her position on all things.
The book is Godless: The Church of Liberalism. It was going to be interesting to find out what Coulter thought about liberals and God and all that stuff. I read the first few paragraphs. Here’s what I found:
They exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creation rather than the Creator …. Therefore, God gave them up to passions of dishonor; for their females exchanged the natural use for that which is contrary to nature.
So she starts out with a quote from Romans. I was not familiar with this section, so I had to look it up. Coulter’s copy is a bit different from mine, which is the KJV:
Romans 1:25-26King James Version (KJV)
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
While I’m trying to figure out what this is all about, I will post the opening paragraphs from the book:
Liberals love to boast that they are not “religious,” which is what one would expect to hear
from the state-sanctioned religion. Of course liberalism is a religion. It has its own cosmology,
its own miracles, its own beliefs in the supernatural, its own churches, its own high priests, its own saints, its own total worldview, and its own explanation of the existence of the universe. In other words, liberalism contains all the attributes of what is generally known as “religion.”
Under the guise of not favoring religion, liberals favor one cosmology over another and demand total indoctrination into theirs. The state religion of liberalism demands
obeisance (to the National Organization for Women), tithing (to teachers’ unions), reverence (for abortion), and formulaic imprecations (“Bush lied, kids died!” “Keep your laws off my body!” “Arms for hostages!”). Everyone is taxed to support indoctrination into the state religion through the public schools, where innocent children are taught a specific belief system, rather than, say, math.
Liberal doctrines are less scientifically provable than the story of Noah’s ark, but their belief system is taught as fact in government schools, while the Biblical belief system is banned from government schools by law. As a matter of faith, liberals believe: Darwinism is a fact, people are born gay, child-molesters can be rehabilitated, recycling is a virtue, and chastity is not. If people are born gay, why hasn’t Darwinism weeded out people who don’t reproduce? (For that, we need a theory of survival of the most fabulous.) And if gays can’t change, why do liberals think child-molesters can? Pedophilia is a sexual preference. If they’re born that way, instead of rehabilitation, how about keeping them locked up? Why must children be taught that recycling is the only answer? Why aren’t we teaching children “safe littering”?
We aren’t allowed to ask. Believers in the liberal faith might turn violent-much like the practitioners of Islam, the Religion of Peace, who ransacked Danish embassies worldwide because a Danish newspaper published cartoons of Mohammed. This is something else that
can’t be taught in government schools: Muslims’ predilection for violence. On the first anniversary of the 9/11 attack, the National Education Association’s instruction materials exhorted teachers, “Do not suggest that any group is responsible” for the attack of 9/11.’
If a Martian landed in America and set out to determine the nation’s official state religion, he would have to conclude it is liberalism, while Christianity and Judaism are prohibited by law. And not just in Cambridge, Massachusetts, where it’s actually on the books, but throughout the land. This is a country in which taxpayers are forced to subsidize “artistic” exhibits of aborted fetuses, crucifixes in urine, and gay pornography. Meanwhile, it’s unconstitutional to display a Nativity scene at Christmas or the Ten Commandments on government property if the purpose is to promote monotheistic religion. Nearly half the members of the Supreme Court—the ones generally known as “liberals”—are itching to ban the references to God on our coins and in the Pledge of Allegiance. They resisted in 2004 on procedural grounds only because it was an election year.
The absence of a divinity makes liberals’ belief system no less religious. Liberals define religion as only those belief systems that subscribe to the notion of a divine being in order to dismiss other religions as mere religion and theirs as something greater. Shintoism
and Buddhism have no Creator God either, and they are considered religions. Curiously, those are two of the most popular religions among leftists-at least until 9/11, when Islam became all the rage.
Liberalism is a comprehensive belief system denying the Christian* belief in man’s immortal soul. Their religion holds that there is nothing sacred about human consciousness. It’s just an accident no more significant than our possession of opposable thumbs. They deny what we know about ourselves: that we are moral beings in God’s image. Without this fundamental understanding of man’s place in the world, we risk being lured into misguided pursuits, including bestiality, slavery, and PETA membership. Liberals swoon in pagan admiration of Mother Earth, mystified and overawed by her power. They deny the Biblical idea of dominion and progress, the most ringing affirmation of which is the United States of America.
Although they are Druids, liberals masquerade as rationalists, adopting a sneering tone of scientific sophistication, which is a little like being condescended to by a tarot card reader. Liberals hate science and react badly to it. They will literally run from the room, light-
headed and nauseated, when told of data that might suggest that the sexes have different abilities in math and science. They repudiate science when it contradicts their pagan beliefs-that the AIDS virus doesn’t discriminate, that there is no such thing as IQ, that nuclear
power is dangerous and scary, or that breast implants cause disease. Liberals use the word science exactly as they use the word constitutional.
* Throughout this book, I often refer to Christians and Christianity because I am a Christian and I have a fairly good idea of what they believe, but the term is intended to include anyone who subscribes to the Bible of the God of Abraham, including Jews and others.
There is just so much there. At the same time, so little. How many ways are there to spell “devoid of content?” I will just take on a few points and let the remainder sort themselves out. Let’s start with Coulter’s first sentence:
Liberals love to boast that they are not “religious,” which is what one would expect to hear
from the state-sanctioned religion.
Really? I’m seeing it now. All those liberals, marching lockstep in parade, lifting their faces to the sky and their voices to wind and shouting, “We are not religious!” That is, except for all of those liberals who are religious. What we’re supposed to do about them is not explained. Also not explained is the myriad staunch conservatives who reject Coulter’s religion and anything like it.
And that appears to set the tone for the book. Gross generalizations, unsubstantiated assertions, some ludicrous examples, some outright fabrications. It’s deserving of another example.
Liberal doctrines are less scientifically provable than the story of Noah’s ark, but their belief system is taught as fact in government schools, while the Biblical belief system is banned from government schools by law. As a matter of faith, liberals believe: Darwinism is a fact, people are born gay, child-molesters can be rehabilitated, recycling is a virtue, and chastity is not.
There’s a lot in those two sentences. What is meant by “liberal doctrines” is not revealed, but I’m going to think Coulter has biological evolution in mind. So biological evolution is less provable than the story of Noah’s ark? That could be the basis for a wonderful research paper. It would get any number of people poring over reams of research. Teams could take sides. Imagine, if you will, the matter being debated back and forth, heat rising, tempers flaring. Never going to happen. Coulter drops it on the floor as a given and moves swiftly on.
The Biblical belief system is banned from government schools by law. True. But why? Coulter does not explain. Weep for the richness of elaboration that Coulter has abandoned, perhaps for expediency, perhaps for other purposes. Missing is the history. Missing is the legacy of Tennessee’s Butler Act and the subsequent trial of John T. Scopes. Missing is Epperson v. Arkansas. Missing is McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education. Missing is Edwards v. Aguillard. And finally missing, too, is Kitzmiller v. Dover Area Board of Education. And that last is a real tragedy. What an opportunity was missed.
The Kitzmiller case was the one that finally exposed the underpinnings of the creationist movement. Board members of the Dover Area School District contrived to introduce religious concepts into the school curriculum, and thought they had found a route through a new brand of creationism called Intelligent Design. They invited litigation. They invited disaster. And it came, of their own making. Seeking to demonstrate the validity of creationism as a scientific study, they called upon the best minds behind the concept. The pulled on the best available evidence for Intelligent Design. And they brought nothing. They had nothing to show. Furthermore, principals of the Board’s defense witnesses perjured themselves and incurred the wrath of a conservative federal judge.
And still Coulter wonders why creationism cannot be taught in public schools.
And, absent the product of the best scientific minds of our times, what would Coulter call upon us to rely on, to turn to for direction in our private lives? It’s a book. It could possibly be Coulter’s favorite book. She quoted it at the very first of the book. Yes, she did. So I will conclude with another quote from that book:
Numbers 22:30King James Version (KJV)
30 And the ass said unto Balaam, Am not I thine ass, upon which thou hast ridden ever since I was thine unto this day? was I ever wont to do so unto thee? and he said, Nay.