Customer Reviews

GODLESS: The Church of Liberalism

5 star:		(510)
4 star:		(94)
3 star:		(43)
2 star:		(42)
1 star:		(279)

 

 

I've always been a huge fan of Mr. Coulter's. How can you not love someone who calls for the bombing of newspapers, demands the conversion of non-Christians by the sword, and mocks the grieving of Cindy Sheehan for her son and the 911 widows for their husbands. Coulter's popularity is the ultimate proof that America has rejected the old, compassionate, French-minded Jesus of the Beatitudes and adopted the Jesus of Our Leader, a savior who isn't afraid to [...] and slay nations, a redeemer who despises the weak and belittles the grieving.

The logic Coulter employs in "Godless" is impeccable. Liberals, she proclaims, detest science. They ignore the empirically observable truth that God fashioned Eve from Adam's rib while they promote superstitious Darwinism. They deny the science supporting the use of adult stem cells to cure disease because "Liberals just want to kill humans." How can you argue with that?

I'm a liberal, but often I read books by conservative authors such as Robert H. Bork ("Slouching Towards Gomorrah"), Thomas Sowell ("Black Rednecks and White Liberals"; "Economics Politics"; and "Race and Culture: Around the World"), Walter Williams, and Shelby Steele. I jokingly say to my friends, "It's good to know what the enemy's thinking." But on a serious note, some of these more illuminating conservative writers have very good arguments concerning the various political and social problems of the day and arguments, which are grounded in logic, experience, and reason.

That bring us to Ann Coulter's book, "Godless". I read it because of the controversy surrounding the book. I'm a native New Yorker, so it was interesting to read her book coupled with her public comments. In conclusion, I must say that the book is full of witty satirical prose, but the book is very short on arguments. Instead, it delves into ranting, at times, downright hatred of liberals. The arguments are very one-sided, which is disappointing because it seems that Coulter engages in a classic "strawman" argument: setting up the opposition and their positions in the weakest manner possible and then countering them, not with logical arguments: premise, premise, conclusion; but rather straight to conclusions--very outrageous and particularly harsh ones at that. In addition, the number of times she engages in the logical fallacy of argumentum ad hominem (appeal to ridicule) is unforgivable, particularly for a writer and scholar of her supposed ability and stature (this is the first Coulter book I've read). For the few arguments that may be somewhat logical and convincing, Coulter's ability to jump to dubious universally applicable conclusions based on skewed facts and quotations paired with the unbelievably harsh prose at times, is a real turn-off for a person approaching the book with an open mind or politcally moderate. Further, the book seems to ignore examples that stand contrary to Coulter's standard liberal caricature, as if Coulter casted the liberal ideology accurately and confronted them head-on, the book might have been decent--but I find Coulter's intellectual honesty inherently suspect throughout the book. If one does get this book, I would suggest checking the sources, as I did (particularly concerning the 9/11 widows and the 9/11 commission--I won't supply my findings here, I suggest you read the book and draw your own conclusions), and even the Biblical quotations are skewed and crudely interpreted to imply divine hatred of liberals.

In this book, there is no debunking of a somewhat accurate liberal belief system, with straight analysis and facts, that you might find in Bork, Sowell, Williams, or Steele. While those aforementioned authors can be harsh writiers as well, their analysis is clear and logical. Certainly, Sowell and Steele in particular, made me reconsider and challenge some of the political and social perceptions concerning my race--a mea culpa of sorts (I'm an African-American male). I didn't become greatly more conservative as a result, but those authors added more clarity to the political discourse concerning race in our country. It was a refreshing intellectual experience, and I was well-rewarding for reading those who challenged my preconceived notions of how the world operates. However, if you are looking for such an experience in this "Godless," I would emphatically urge you to look elsewhere. But, if you want to fill your head with at times, nonsensical ranting, unsupported facts, and virulent hatred then read the book. The other conservative authors I listed above, I would recommend you reading instead, regardless of your political ideology. In conclusion, I would simply chalk Coulter's book as another step in the decline of reasonable and civil political discourse in this country.

My first thought, working through this book, was that everything I read was the worst thing ever written. Under further consideration, the frantic, persecuted-feeling tone to the book really helps explain some of the actions and statements of the more extreme conservatives in recent years. This provides a lens into understanding much of the mindset of the extremist Christians - surely not the intention of the author, but by far the best way to get anything actually meaningful or insightful from the book.

This book is horrible. I as a conservative cannot even see the point of writing such a mean spirited piece of garbage. No educational value whatsoever is in this.

The coverage of her book is really trashy too. I am ashamed of the repulican party already, this just really pushes me to want to be an independent.

I didn't have a very high opinion about American Christian conservatives before, but reading this book have changed my view. This is a bestselling book by leading conservative intellectual Ann Coulter, and it has received many positive reviews (e.g. here at Amazon), so now I am forced to conclude that some conservatives are far dumber than I had ever imagined.
Coulter's main types of argumentation are (1) name calling (2) fabrications and fantasies (3) massive omissions of relevant facts and (4) a black-and-white thinking that makes her the intellectual equal of such subtle thinkers as Hitler and Stalin (and if you find such comparisons offensive, please don't read Coulter's book because it is full of them). Actually, I find myself at times wondering whether the book (or at least parts of it) is just a joke, not intendend to be taken seriously. In particular the first chapter is full of completely bizarre statements: "Liberalism is a belief system denying the Christian belief in an immortal soul", "environmentalists want mass infanticide", "the core of environmentalism is that they hate mankind", "birds are like rats, you couldn't get rid of them even if you tried", "if Hitler hadn't turned on their beloved Stalin, Liberals would have stuck by him too", "I would be crestfallen to find any liberals in heaven". And that is just a small sample that really cannot do justice to the vileness and stupidity of this book.
Much of the book adresses issues related to science. Coulter's approach to analysing science consists of not reading any scientific literature, ignoring almost all the data, completely missunderstanding how science works and in particular what constitutes evidence and disproof, and then calling scientists liars, cultists, hysterics and lots of other names. Take global warming. One might expect that a fact like an increase of the mean annual global surface temperature of around 0.6 C the last century would have been relevant if one discusses whether global warming occurs, but Coulter stays clear of any such facts. Her whole treatment of evidence consists of a reference to a statement made by comedian Larry David's wife about a hot September. But I suppose a conservative could find that an adequate treatment of a scientific subject.
There are four chapters of evolution. They appear to be entirely based on creationst literature (in particular Jonathan Wells), and basically contain a repetition of old creationist arguments and quote mining, with an extra dosis of stupidity, vilification and ignorance added for measure. Just a brief example of how Coulter deals with the few pieces of evidence she does adress: she mentions that scientists had found a fossil in Greenland this year of "an odd-looking fish with weird appendages and pronounced the missing link between fish and land animals". What she doesn't mention is that (1) it was a fish with limbs, although not strong enough for walking on land, and with a neck - which you otherwise don't find on fish - and quite an amphibian skull, and (2) a lot of similar critters have been found before, including amphibians a few million years younger, with gills and tails like fish and somewhat more developed limbs. Actually, the scientists that found the fish knew where to look based on these previous findings. That is real science being done. But while real scientists are digging up real evidence for evolution, Coulter is busy trying to bury the same evidence under a stinking pile of ignorance, poor logic, and insults.
Or just take the challenges to evolutions posed by Behe's argument of irreducible complexity and Dembski's "complicated mathematic formulas for detecting design". Coulter claims that evolutionary scientists have been completely unable to respond to these challenges, but that is blatantly false. You can even find several book here at Amazon that refute Behe's and Dembski's pseudoscientific arguments.
Or consider Coulter's absurd discussion about "bad mutations" in the fossil record, were she claims that according to evolutionary theory we should have found things like "a dog that mutated antennae, or gills, or a tail on its head." I believe Coulter is confusing evolutionary theory with Marvel comics!
In summary, this is a stupid and dishonest book written for people that don't like to think and don't want to know. The fact that it has become a bestseller speaks volumes about the intellectual state among Christian conservatives and should worry anybody that is concerned about the future of science and democracy in the US.

Ann's Coulter's use of a few isolated incidents, the most notable of which is Piltdown Man (never fully accepted by the biologists and paleontologists anyway) does not a body of evidence make. Most of her sources are over a hundred years old, and use of the word "Theory" in the scientific sense differs from its popular use.

If Ann and and her fellow travellers are prepared to believe her conclusions, then they must also must reject such well-established theories as plate tectonics (the ultimate resting place of many older fossils) as well as the fact that many soft-celled organisms are chemically incapable of leaving a fossil footprint. The ultimate canard is that Ann's own "ideas", for they do not rise to the level of a hypothosis, let alone a theory, are ultimately proven to be a canard. If Homo Sapiens Sapiens did indeed emerge as such spontaeneously, why do specimens not exist in older strata? Do they reject radiometric dating and isotopic decay as a means of dating? Is spectographic imaging, commonly used by our military, also an errant school of science? The primary argument of ID followers is that each species covering the age of progression has not been identified, thereby debunking the entire theory. This argument wouldn't wash with a student with no more scientific background than Bio 102. But I believe Michael Benton, Head of the Dept of Earth Sciences at the University of Bristol put it best when writing:

"It would be marvellous if the fossil record were complete, and all species that ever existed were laid out to be seen and recorded. There would then never be an doubt about what happened, and when, and even why. However, most organisms that ever lived did not become fossils and this thought certainly gives palaeontologists sleepless nights.

Fortunately, there is an important scaling issue that saves the palaeontologist's sleep: the bigger the taxonomic target target, the more chance you have of finding it. As you climb the taxanomic hierarchy, the chances of preservation increase. So, the chance of finding any any particular fossil species might be 1%. But if there are ten species in a genus, then the chance of finding that genus increases to 10%. If there are 10 genera in a family, the next trditional rank in the taxamonic hierarchy, then the chance of finding at least 1 representative of that family is 100%. So, palaeontologists make their initial global studies at the level of the family. Once that survey is complete, they may attempt to drop to the genus level, or even the species level, perhaps for local studies."

The oldest know rocks on earth are 3.5 billion years old, and there's evidence that life existed back then. The burrowed remains of tube worms are found in those rocks.

I just suggest everyone check her endnotes to find how the truth can be misappropriated to create an alternate reality. She certainly is a master at Fabricating falsehood.

If 0 stars would have been an option then this book would certainly warrant that low esteem. This is not even worth recycling into toliet paper.

1) Please continue to make ludicrous comments and try to offend as many people as possible with your childish rants...it just strips more credibility away from you as a serious pundit and author. Granted your "offensive" comments which you make to garner attention for yourself may make your product sell more, it comes at the expense of your dignity and makes you look like a joke...you probably do not care though, since you are a money grubbing w***e who will do anything for a buck.

2) Please stop using your so called "sex appeal" and stop wearing tight mini-skirts and clothes you hypocrite. First of all, you are not really good looking. Second, conservatives such as yourself look down upon revealing too much skin. I am surprised the FCC does not blur out your legs when you appear on "The Tonight Show".

3) Please stop trying to be funny in your interviews...no one laughs at your jokes...you are not funny nor witty.

In Ann Coulter's book, "Godless: The Church of Liberalism", Ann seems to be playing the role of the Inquisition and the Catholic Church of the 1600s. Liberals appear to be playing the role of Galileo Galilei, the Italian physicist, mathematician, astronomer and philosopher who championed the heliocentric theory.

Now of course, in the 1600s Galileo was accused of heresy by the Catholic Church for daring to claim that the Earth traveled around the sun.

Ann makes similar accusations against liberals for daring to claim that evolution is actually peer-reviewed science.

She actually goes on to insist that liberals believe in the science of evolution, global warming and the potential of embyonic stem cell research NOT because it's good science, but because liberalism is some bizarre religious cult and that we believe in things such as evolution because our religious leaders told us to.

Wow.

I suppose it therefore follows that the high priests of the liberal "religion" must be scientists with degrees in biology, medicine, climate science, immunology and other fields of science that Ann doesn't agree with.

Meanwhile Ann insists that the belief that God created the first human out of dirt is "real science".

Ann loves her "real science" of Intelligent Design so much that she insists that scientists are an evil sub-cabal of atheist liberals, a group so addicted to godlessness that they must hide at all costs the awful "truth" that evolution didn't happen. She accuses evolutionists of brainwashing children with phony fossils and made-up "evidence," turning the kids into "Darwiniacs."

Hidden away on page 277 (where lazy readers might not even see it) Ann admits that evolution might be true:

"God exists whether or not archaeopteryx ever evolved into something better. If evolution is true, then God created evolution."

So, after spending scores of pages telling us that only religious fanatics (liberals) believe in evolution, Ann tells us that evolution MIGHT be true, but only if we give God credit for creating it!

It sounds to me like Ann doesn't actually believe her own propaganda.

However IN THE SAME CHAPTER where Ann admits that evolution might be true; Ann once again accuses all those who believe in evolution of belonging to a crazy religious cult!

And then in the last chapter of the book she tries to link America's liberals to Adolf Hitler. She points out the fact that Adolf Hitler believed in evolution. She then points out that most liberals in America believe in evolution, thus because both American liberals of the 21st century and German Nazis from the 20th century believe in evolution, American liberals MUST be just as evil as the Nazis!

"From Marx to Hitler, the men responsible for the greatest mass murders of the twentieth century were avid Darwinists."

And while Hitler (along with most of the educated people in Germany, Switzerland, Sweden, Holland, England, France, Canada and the United States of America) believed in evolution, Hitler also believed in God. He was baptized and raised Catholic and claimed that he was doing God's work by attacking the Jews, atheists, communists and other "heretics".

The words "Gott mit uns" (God is with us) were inscribed on the belt buckles of Nazi soldiers during World War II and many of Hitler's personal writings and public speeches had God, God's will, God's blessings and God's approval as their central theme.

Since Ann is doing guilt by association, shouldn't we look at Hitler's belief in God and point out the fact that one of the greatest mass murderers of the twentieth century was a Christian and a self-described "Agent of God?"

By Ann's "logic" we should point out Hitler's belief in the Christian God and conclude that all Christians are dangerous fanatics that cannot be trusted.

Adding more insanity to an already ludicrous book, Ann makes several childish attempts to make it seem as if America's liberals supported Adolf Hitler and even says, "If Hitler hadn't turned on their beloved Stalin, liberals would have stuck by him too."

Ann certainly loves her historic revisionism; however it only works if you ignore some very relevant facts. For instance:

1. The Nazis were opposed by left wingers and democrats such as Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Harry S. Truman. The Republicans in Congress opposed Roosevelt's plans to use America's military and financial resources to stand against Nazi Germany.

2. The Nazis were supported by right wingers and republicans such as Prescott Bush, Charles Lindbergh, Charles Coughlin and Fritz Kuhn.

3. While the Nazis believed in white supremacy and the inferiority of the blacks, left wingers like Franklin D. Roosevelt believed in the equality of the races and democratic government where all men were treated equally. That's why Roosevelt desegregated the United States armed forces and allowed blacks to serve alongside whites in combat.

4. While right wingers such as Hitler, Lindbergh, Coughlin and Kuhn were all shameless anti-Semites, Roosevelt appointed the first Jewish Secretary of the Treasury (Henry Morgenthau Jr.) and appointed another Jewish man (Felix Frankfurter) to the Supreme Court. In point of fact, Roosevelt appointed so many Jews to high level positions in the federal government that he was publicly criticized for it by multiple Americans. It is also a matter of public record that during his first term Roosevelt condemned Hitler's persecution of German Jews.

Its obvious Ann isn't a historian. Every time she tries to give a history lesson she gets everything wrong.

The sad thing is that Ann has flocks of intellectually-lazy fans that adore her and think that her historic revisionism is historic fact.

This book is written like some liberal books I have read. There is a lot of name calling, personal slams, and downright meaness. I like to read books from either side of the aisle if they are well written and respectful of the fact that not everyone thinks the same way. I prefer polital books that rely on facts and well supported opinions. I do not like any political books that are based on emotion and hate. Unfortunatly this book falls in the second category.
Ms. Coulter...Why do you want to stoop to the level of the people you obviously don't like (to put it mildly)?
I will talk politics and personal values to anyone who will listen and talk respectfully. I will listen to their side and respectfully disagree with my reasons why I disagree. I will not resort to name calling. It is childish and makes me look stupid and wrong.
By the way...I am a young conservative republican...and I do NOT agree with the way this book is written. I agree with books like "Conservative Comebacks to Liberal Lies". I believe Ms. Coulter is doing more harm than good for the GOP. If she truly wants conservatives to be respected, she needs to either change the way she "says" things in her books, or stop writing them altogether.