Godless: The Church of Liberalism [Hardcover]

Ann Coulter (Author)

Book Description

Publication Date: June 6, 2006

"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.

Many Americans are outraged by liberal hostility to traditional religion. But as Ann Coulter reveals in this, her most explosive book yet, to focus solely on the Left's attacks on our Judeo-Christian tradition is to miss a larger point: liberalism is a religion—a godless one.

And it is now entrenched as the state religion of this county.

Though liberalism rejects the idea of God and reviles people of faith, it bears all the attributes of a religion. In Godless, Coulter throws open the doors of the Church of Liberalism, showing us its sacraments (abortion), its holy writ (Roe v. Wade), its martyrs (from Soviet spy Alger Hiss to cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal), its clergy (public school teachers), its churches (government schools, where prayer is prohibited but condoms are free), its doctrine of infallibility (as manifest in the "absolute moral authority" of spokesmen from Cindy Sheehan to Max Cleland), and its cosmology (in which mankind is an inconsequential accident).

Then, of course, there's the liberal creation myth: Charles Darwin's theory of evolution.

For liberals, evolution is the touchstone that separates the enlightened from the benighted. But Coulter neatly reverses the pretense that liberals are rationalists guided by the ideals of free inquiry and the scientific method. She exposes the essential truth about Darwinian evolution that liberals refuse to confront: it is bogus science.

Writing with a keen appreciation for genuine science, Coulter reveals that the so-called gaps in the theory of evolution are all there is—Darwinism is nothing but a gap. After 150 years of dedicated searching into the fossil record, evolution's proponents have failed utterly to substantiate its claims. And a long line of supposed evidence, from the infamous Piltdown Man to the "evolving" peppered moths of England, has been exposed as hoaxes. Still, liberals treat those who question evolution as religious heretics and prohibit students from hearing about real science when it contradicts Darwinism. And these are the people who say they want to keep faith out of the classroom?

Liberals' absolute devotion to Darwinism, Coulter shows, has nothing to do with evolution's scientific validity and everything to do with its refusal to admit the possibility of God as a guiding force. They will brook no challenges to the official religion.

Fearlessly confronting the high priests of the Church of Liberalism and ringing with Coulter's razor-sharp wit, Godless is the most important and riveting book yet from one of today's most lively and impassioned conservative voices.


"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.'" —From Godless

Editorial Reviews

About the Author

Ann Coulter is the author of five New York Times bestsellers, including How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must), Treason, Slander, and High Crimes and Misdemeanors.


From the Trade Paperback edition. --This text refers to an alternate Hardcover edition.

Excerpt. © Reprinted by permission. All rights reserved.

Chapter 1: On the Seventh Day, God Rested and Liberals Schemed

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, lightheaded 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.

Both words are nothing more or less than a general statement of liberal approval, having nothing to do with either science or the Constitution. (Thus, for example, the following sentence makes sense to liberals: President Clinton saved the Constitution by repeatedly ejaculating on a fat Jewish girl in the Oval Office.) The core of the Judeo-Christian tradition says that we are utterly and distinctly apart from other species. We have dominion over the plants and the animals on Earth. God gave it to us, it’s ours—as stated succinctly in the book of Genesis. Liberals would sooner trust the stewardship of the Earth to Shetland ponies and dung beetles. All their pseudoscience supports an alternative religion that says we are an insignificant part of nature.

Environmentalists want mass infanticide, zero population growth, reduced standards of living, and vegetarianism. The core of environmentalism is that they hate mankind. Everything liberals believe is in elegant opposition to basic Biblical precepts.

- Our religion says that human progress proceeds from the spark of divinity in the human soul; their religion holds that human progress is achieved through sex and death.

- We believe in invention and creation; they catalogue with stupefaction the current state of our diminishing resources and tell us to stop consuming.

- We say humans stand apart from the world and our charge is Planet Earth; they say we are part of the world, and our hubristic use of nature is sinful.

- We say humans are in God’s image; they say we are no different morally from the apes.

- We believe in populating the Earth until there’s standing room only and then colonizing Mars; they believe humans are in the twilight of their existence.

Our book is Genesis. Their book is Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring, the original environmental hoax. Carson brainwashed an entire generation into imagining a world without birds, killed by DDT. Because of liberals’ druidical religious beliefs, they won’t allow us to save Africans dying in droves of malaria with DDT because DDT might hurt the birds. A few years after oil drilling began in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, a saboteur set off an explosion blowing a hole in the pipeline and releasing an estimated 550,000 gallons of oil. It was one of the most devastating environmental disasters in recent history. Six weeks later, all the birds were back. Birds are like rats—you couldn’t get rid of them if you tried.

The various weeds and vermin liberals are always trying to save are no more distinguishable than individual styles of rap music. The massive Dickey-Lincoln Dam, a $227 million hydroelectric project proposed on upper St. John River in Maine, was halted by the discovery of the Furbish lousewort, a plant previously believed to be extinct. Liberals didn’t even know this plant still existed, but suddenly they were seized with affection for it. They had been missing it all that time! (Granted, the rediscovery of the Furbish lousewort has improved the lives of every man, woman, and child in America in ways too numerous to count, but even so . . . ) Liberals are more upset when a tree is chopped down than when a child is aborted. Even if one rates an unborn child less than a full-blown person, doesn’t the unborn child rate slightly higher than vegetation? Liberals are constantly warning us that man is overloading the environment to the detriment of the plants. Howard Dean left the Episcopal Church—which is barely even a church—because his church, in Montpelier, Vermont, would not cede land for a bike path. Environmentally friendly exercise was more important than tending to the human soul.

That’s all you need to know about the Democrats.

Blessed be the peacemakers who create a diverse, nonsexist working environment in paperless offices. Suspiciously, the Democrats’ idea of an energy policy never involves the creation of new energy. They want solar power, wind power, barley power. How about creating a new source of energy? Nuclear reactors do that with no risk of funding Arab terrorists or—more repellent to liberals—Big Oil Companies. But in a spasm of left-wing insanity in the seventies, nuclear power was curtailed in this country.

Japan has nuclear power, France has nuclear power—almost all modern countries have nuclear power. But we had Jane Fonda in the movie The China Syndrome. Liberals are very picky about their admiration for Western Europe.

Now it turns out even Chernobyl wasn’...

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Hardcover: 320 pages
• Publisher: Crown Forum (June 6, 2006)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 1400054206
• ISBN-13: 978-1400054206
• Product Dimensions: 6.1 x 1.1 x 9.3 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1.2 pounds (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 3.5 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (968 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #304,059 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

ANN COULTER is the #1 New York Times bestselling author of Godless, How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must), Treason, Slander, and High Crimes and Misdemeanors. She is the legal correspondent for Human Events and a syndicated columnist for Universal Press Syndicate. You can read her weekly column on her website, www.anncoulter.com.

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

3,564 of 4,365 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Republican Jesus wins out, June 7, 2006

By 

Gen. JC Christian, patriot (Tremonton, UT United States) - See all my reviews

This review is from: Godless: The Church of Liberalism (Hardcover)

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?

7 of 7 people found the following review helpful:

1.0 out of 5 stars TRUTHLESS: Ann's Church of Lies, Deception and Historic Revisionism, December 25, 2011

By 

Stephen C. Coyle (Los Angeles, CA) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

This review is from: Godless: The Church of Liberalism (Paperback)

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.

172 of 231 people found the following review helpful:

2.0 out of 5 stars A self-described "Liberal," who actually read the book with an open mind, July 19, 2006

By 

Junis L. Baldon (Columbus, OH, by way of Upper Manhattan, NY) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

This review is from: Godless: The Church of Liberalism (Hardcover)

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.