Your rating(Clear)Rate this item


There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.

3,622 of 4,474 people found the following review helpful
Format: 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?
139139 commentsWas this review helpful to you?YesNoSending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Report abuse
224 of 308 people found the following review helpful
on July 19, 2006
Format: 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.
1212 commentsWas this review helpful to you?YesNoSending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Report abuse
10 of 13 people found the following review helpful
Format: Hardcover
In the first few pages Coulter claims that liberalism is a godless religion, now entrenched as America's state religion, and that Darwinism is bogus science. As for documentation and proof - we'll just have to wait until the next book.

Other assertions include liberals being guilty of believing that "recycling is the only answer," making Islam the religious rage among leftists after 9/11, wanting mass infanticide (presumably in support of zero population growth), believing its important to never, ever punish criminals, swallowing global warming pseudo-science, asserting that stem-cell (vs. adult cell) research is the only way to progress, believing that Darwin's theories were used by both Stalin and Mao to rationalize starving millions to death, etc. Each of these assertions (and others) is based either on over-generalizing from some left-wing nut-case, or very selective reporting of only a small portion of the facts.

On the other hand, Coulter does hit some issues correctly: Liberals generally deny that IQ is important and primarily subject to genetic inheritance; they also believe that public school teachers are underpaid gods and goddesses - as a result underemphasizing the role of the home and pupil motivation. Another is that males and females have equal talents in all regards - including math and science. Coulter is also correct that liberals tend to worry about overpopulation (thank goodness).

Her most outrageous comments focused on the 9/11 widows who pressed for investigations into who dropped the WTC ball. Wanting to correct government mistakes (and there were MANY) to prevent a repeat would seem laudable to most - instead, Ann selects a minor issue or two to attack (eg. Could the FAA really have responded faster in real time? Probably not, but then they also clearly failed to require cockpit door reinforcements despite several prior warnings and suggestions) to distort and smear the widows efforts and contributions.

Puerile, at best; more importantly, a sad commentary on Americans' willingness to read trash.
0CommentWas this review helpful to you?YesNoSending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Report abuse
33 of 46 people found the following review helpful
on March 9, 2007
Format: Hardcover
Ann Coulter only shows the decay in the people's capacity to find good, informative reading. When a book like "Godless" is #1 on the bestseller lists when better books like Noam Chomsky's "Failed States" are available, then you can see why America has such pathetic reading levels. Why this woman is still considered a relevant voice when it comes to discussing domestic, much less foreign, policy is an elusive mystery of modern pop culture. "Godless" offers little facts, little humor and pathetic observations of a modern America which Coulter and her ilk see as a battleground between those who are simply moving forward and those like her and Bill O'Reilly who want to stop the train on it's tracks. But while Coulter's previous books were normal conservative observations, "Godless" is just pure, hysterical ranting about things apparently only Coulter notices. Liberals will be stupified at seeing Coulter grant them their own church which she claims "only promotes sex and death," which is a surprising claim coming from someone who feverishly supports the Iraq war and has stated that she "prefers nukes." Of course Coulter hides behind the curtain of "it was just a joke." But it's not funny unless you're the divisive type who simply likes to inflict offenses on others without actually trying to take part in serious social discussion. Coulter espouses the paranoid claim that Islam is taking over the country and that apparently the Democratic party's favorite religion is Islam. More joking I guess. The book is very short, a surprising similarity in the conservative camp from authors who claim they are providing in-depth studies of the modern world. Coulter's discussions of foreign policy are useless with little information to offer except the usual right-wing cheerleading about blowing away other cultures we could care less about understanding (some of us simply call this imperialism). Coulter also has a bizaare fixation on Darwin here, apparently she woke up one morning and decided Darwin was her main nemesis in life which is the impression one gets from the endless pages attacking evolution. If someone writes a well-assembled study of evolution and a well-researched critique of Darwin, fine, it's worth reading, but Coulter offers nothing new here or informative for that matter. "Godless" reads more like something a comedian during the Crusades would have written, Coulter tries to paint herself as a Christian but shows little of it in her actual treatment of various subjects and personalities. She tries to paint Christianity as some sort of war mongering faith where everyone needs to have their swords ready to go slaughter infidels. "Godless" is one of those sad works that will no doubt lose appeal as the times change and will end-up in a $[...] bin once Iraq goes the way of Vietnam. It is hard to believe that serious scholars will visit "Godless" decades from now. In fact, we shouldn't even be reading it now.
0CommentWas this review helpful to you?YesNoSending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Report abuse
95 of 135 people found the following review helpful
Format: Hardcover
For the past decade attorney and political commentator Ann Coulter has been one of the most passionate, articulate voices on behalf of modern American conservatism. In her first book, "High Crimes and Misdemeanors: The Case Against Bill Clinton", Coulter made a persuasive case for former President William Clinton's impeachment, conviction and removal from office (Looking back, I might add a more serious charge than those she cited in her book; gross dereliction of his duty to defend the United States from attack by refusing to take seriously the threat of Islamofascist terror. If Clinton had listened to excellent advice from aides like Dick Morris, then perhaps the 9/11/01 terrorist attacks on the United States would have been prevented.). More recently, in "Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism", Coulter wrote a stinging indictment of the Left's handling of American foreign policy since the end of World War II; one which should be taken seriously by anyone interested in the history of American foreign policy in the postwar world (I thought so highly of this book, that it earned recently a glowing Amazon.com customer review from me.). For these reasons alone I should be prepared to write a glowing review of "Godless: The Church of Liberalism"; instead, I will condemn, not praise, Coulter's prose.

Coulter contends that secular humanism has become the unofficial state religion of the American Left. Furthermore, she argues passionately that this religion has allowed the Left to embrace causes like women's reproductive health rights, to defend spies and murderers ranging from Alger Hiss to Mumia Abu-Jamal, and to subscribe to a creation myth known as "Darwin's Theory of Evolution". Coulter also implies that the Left has gone far astray from the moral and religious values of our Founding Fathers. In "Godless: The Church of Liberalism" Coulter offers a somewhat paranoid view of the Left, ignoring the significant roles played by liberal Christian religious leaders during the Civil Rights movement and the anti-war protests against the Vietnam War from the 1950s to 1970s; roles which some liberal Christian theologians like Reverend Jim Wallis, author of the recent best-selling book "God's Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn't Get It", are not yet willing to concede to the so-called Christian Right. Coulter also ignores the excellent scholarship of eminent historians like David McCullough and Gordon Wood (Our foremost authority on the history of the American Revolution and the early republic in the decade after the drafting of the U. S. Constitution; he was also one of the finest professors I had in college.) who have stressed the strong influence of both the Scottish and French Enlightenments on the Founding Fathers' religious and political thinking (Furthermore, Newsweek editor-in-chief Jim Meacham, in his recently published "American Gospel", has argued persuasively that our Founding Fathers had a more secular humanist view of Judeo-Christian values; contrary to the more fundamentalist Protestant interpretations voiced by Ann Coulter, Patrick Buchanan, Pat Robertson and others of their ilk.).

Nearly half of "Godless: The Church of Liberalism" is devoted to "debunking" the liberal creation myth known as "Darwin's Theory of Evolution". Regrettably, Coulter demonstrates repeatedly her ignorance of the scientific method, ignoring the overwhelming body of evidence which exists from the fossil record to molecular biology, in support of both the fact of evolution, and of Darwin's theory of evoluion via natural selection. Coulter presumably believes that evolution is a liberal creation myth since prominent evolutionary biologists such as Edward O. Wilson and especially, Richard Dawkins, have either expressed their strong indifference or hostility towards Christianity; however theirs is a minority view since I know of many prominent scientists, ranging from University of Arizona ecologist Michael Rosenzweig (a devout Jew) to Brown University cell biologist Kenneth Miller (a devout Roman Catholic; author of "Finding Darwin's God"), who see no conflict at all between their personal embrace of religious faith and superb scientific research in evolutionary biology and other aspects of biology. Coulter seems too eager to point out hoaxes like the infamous Piltdown Man discovery or inept scientific research like Ernst Haeckel's assertion that "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" (A hypothesis which the late Stephen Jay Gould debunked in technical works such as his classic mid 1970s book on this subject, "Ontogeny and Phylogeny", and in his superb essays for general public consumption from his "This View of Life" column in Natural History magazine which were also published in a critically acclaimed series of essay collections.). Coulter adds to her ignorance about the significance of the fossil record as important evidence on behalf of evolution by ridiculing as an evolutionary dead end, the recent discovery of Tiktaalik, an aquatic primitive tetrapod which shared a mosaic of fish and amphibian features (The current July/August 2006 issue of Natural History has an article, "From Fins to Limbs", by noted British veterbrate paleontologist Jennifer Clack, which correctly notes the importance of Tiktaalik towards our understanding of the evolution of tetrapods from fish ancestors.).

Coulter comes across as yet another strident apologist for Intelligent Design, contending that a liberal bias in scientific research is the reason why serious scientific research on Intelligent Design has not yet been published in prominent scientific journals. She cites as a sole example, a survey article written by Intelligent Design supporters which was published in an obscure journal published by a Washington, D. C.-based biological society, using it to demonstrate liberal bias against Intelligent Design scientific research. Regrettably, Coulter's legalistic argument doesn't hold muster, since the article in question did not contain any notable research validating the Intelligent Design hypothesis (Coulter should ask herself why prominent scientific journals like Nature and Science have yet to publish Intelligent Design-oriented research articles; could the answer lie in the fact that Intelligent Design is not a credible scientific theory?). Coulter also resorts to a bizarre, McCarthyesque attack on Judge John E. Jones III, the Republican jurist of the Dover, PA trial, who ruled that Intelligent Design is a religious doctrine masquerading as science (For a more thoughtful, witty and yes, hysterically funny, rebuttal to Coulter's views on this trial, its participants, and other aspects of science noted in "Godless", then take a look at this article written by a local newspaper reporter who had provided daily coverage on the trial: [...] Coulter's bizarre behavior stands in stark contrast to the well-reasoned, often profound, critiques of Intelligent Design and favorable appraisals of Darwin's Theory of Evolution via Natural Selection written by fellow conservative commentators Charles Krauthammer and George Will immediately after Judge Jones issued his verdict (These were published in the New York Post and Washington Post soon after Jones' verdict was announced.).

Ann Coulter has earned degrees from two universities which are among the world's preeminent centers for research in ecology and evolutionary biology: Cornell and Michigan. I am surprised that she shows little interest in or knowledge of the excellent research conducted by evolutionary biologists at both universities (If she had acquainted herself with Michigan vertebrate paleontologist Philip Gingerich's seminal research on the origin and early evolution of whales - which is still ongoing - then I think she would not have made the fallacious claim that the fossil record doesn't support evolution.). Instead of reading "Godless: The Church of Liberalism" for Coulter's insipid insights on evolution, I would have to recommend instead, such notable works as Robert Pennock's "Tower of Babel", Kenneth Miller's "Finding Darwin's God" and Niles Eldredge's "Darwin: Discovering the Tree of Life" (Since Coulter does reside in New York City, I hope she has the opportunity to view the American Museum of Natural History's "Darwin" exhibition - curated by noted evolutionary biologist and paleobiologist Niles Eldredge, who is a curator of invertebrate paleontology at the museum - before it closes next month.). But I suspect the prospect of that occuring is as likely as her listening to conservative commentator Bill O'Reilly's recently published advice for her to tone down her strident rhetoric.
44 commentsWas this review helpful to you?YesNoSending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Report abuse
9 of 12 people found the following review helpful
on July 5, 2006
Format: Hardcover
Between the first page and the bottom of page 103, which is where the now infamous "weeping widows" quote appears, many charges are laid at the door of Liberalism. They wish to do nothing other than murder children (well... they believe that they have a constitutional right to stick a fork in a baby's head), to release violent sex offenders into the community and to live on a pile of their own excrement because of their ideological hostility to the "environmentally unfriendly" flush toilet. These are just the good points - the insults come later.

Does anyone actually know such a person, someone who, for example, wishes to include in the school curriculum the teaching of advanced sexual techniques such as "fisting", for all children over the age of 10 (preferably taught by repulsive nymphomaniac, bisexual instructors such as Suzy Landolphi)? Who are the Liberals of Coulterville? Do these people actually exist outside of that fevered thing that Ann calls "her mind"?

It's doubtful that you do know any such figures, because this book isn't about Liberals or the "church" of Liberalism. It's about the Cardinals in this so-called church. Like Ann's entire oeuvre, the book is about Elite Liberals. It's not that Ann doesn't like, or sees no mileage in, beating up on the little guy. Let's face it, she did lose her first radio job (in the commercial break - for God's sake) for mocking a paraplegic Vietnam veteran. It's just that these guys don't supply righteous indignation in sufficient volumes to generate a real moral panic. And Ann DOES need a moral panic to achieve her purpose. For that, we need members of "The Elite" or, even better, the "Self Appointed Elite". Here, we can include the know-it-all, liberal professors, whose attendance at the gates of the Winter Palace is only to be expected pending suitable sabbatical arrangements. La-di-da educationalists who believe education should be kept as far away as possible from the school curriculum. In fact, books like 'Godless' are just part of the new, snarling, brand of conservatism, generally referred to as "the backlash". I'll try to explain below why this isn't a particularly convincing example and why Ann Coulter just isn't dangerous at all.

Backlash conservatism seeks to take the economics out of politics through the use of explosive social and moral issues such as abortion, busing, and public (and publicly financed) invitations to revile what decent people regard as holy. In the latter category would fall the "Self Appointed" Liberals of the National Endowment for the Arts, who part-financed the visual arts competition won by Andres Serrano's notorious photograph of the crucifix. In a nutshell, they seek to ram Clinton's "It's The Economy Stupid" where it will hurt most and to replace this with the slogan "Values Matter Most". It's just as well for Republicans that they do - let's face it, the areas that Republicans depend upon to return them to office haven't exactly done too well out of Bush's "socialism of the rich". The dust and rust bowls of America - the straggling ranches and the dying farm towns of the High Plains - are the areas that consistently vote most solidly for the most right-wing candidate on the ballot. Therein lies the mission of backlash conservatism - to take the economics out of politics, something that they do by reference to precisely the sort of issues Coulter raises in this book.

In the UK, this derangement, whereby people get their most fundamental interests wrong is summed up in the slogan - "turkeys voting for Christmas". In one of the best analyses of the backlash - Thomas Frank's "What's the Matter with Kansas" - Frank refers to a bumper sticker he spotted at a Kansas City gun show that reversed this sentiment - "A working person that supports Democrats is like a chicken that supports Colonel Sanders!" If you own one of these stickers, I'd suggest that you stick it on your front bumper - it's not a proposition that could withstand the kind of analysis it's likely to get on the rear. In fact, we don't need to be too sensitive to the, dare I say, rather elitist assumption in Frank's analysis of Kansas, i.e. that a middle class academic is a better judge of the "real" interests of working people than they are themselves. Truth is, WHATEVER interests these people have, they will ALWAYS be betrayed by Republican party. For the five star idiots reviewing this book - read the following line slowly (and try not to move your lips this time). There is not a single shred of evidence that ANY of the values Coulter claims to uphold in this book is better protected by conservatives. I'm not a great believer in abortion myself, but that doesn't mean I have to vote for politicians who use this issue as a means to achieve their own selfish, material, goals. The most stunning feature of any statistics on abortion is their consistency - something that applies as far back as such statistics go. Conservative politicians talk Jesus on the stump, but pure unadulterated corporate once the votes have been counted. Even the greatest culture warrior of them all, Regan, was a notorious sell-out once in office. Indeed, these politicians have an enduring interest in NOT pressing such values. Come the next election, this failure will be presented as evidence of the entrenched power of the forces of evil against which we need to redouble our efforts next time. It never fails, and the turkeys will turn out one more time.

It's been said that Coulter's greatest achievement was to be sacked from National Review for being too right wing. Now, as we all know, there is no such thing as "too right-wing", so there must have been some other reason. My own view is that they probably sacked her because she is an idiot. The success of backlash politics is based on a low key approach that seeks to return America to a time before the world went to hell. In this view, the elite are the enemy of the real values of working people. If you want to know how Bush became the "working class" candidate in the last election, therein lies the power of backlash politics. To see a master at work, read an account of Bush's visit to Asia by William Buckley Jnr. ([...]) In this, Buckley takes on the Liberal slur - that in 2000 America elected Forrest Gump as President - and turns it on those who manufactured it, to devastating effect. We are presented with a man who is unconcerned about what others think of them; a man who, with the simple sword of Christian decency, and the trusty shield of American values, is playing a far more sophisticated game than they could ever understand. It's complete rubbish of course (for example, the recent open mike "analysis" of the middle East situation) but it's very easy to swallow. Compare this with the in-your-face style of Coulter who can never avoid any opportunity to ingratiate herself even further with the elite she pretends to despise. The truth is, backlash politics wasn't meant to fool the 5 star "intelligentsia" on this site. It was invented to keep the poor voting against their interests. Maybe that's what Orwell meant when he said that some ideas were so absurd that only intellectuals could believe them? Unfortunately for Ann, the poor of America can spot a social climber like her a mile away.
11 commentWas this review helpful to you?YesNoSending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Report abuse
2 of 2 people found the following review helpful
on July 2, 2013
Format: Hardcover
Opposed to women's rights, social equality and public safety nets for society's least fortunate isn't enough for her. Coulter also lambasts the widows of 9/11 victims in this venom-filled, fact-free rant (I guess she needed more money for her numerous habits, a la Rush Limbaugh et al). If the Republicans wish to regain power and retain it for any decent length of time, the first thing they should do is repudiate and sever all ties with this Botox-enhanced sociopath.

Here are some fine examples of Christian love showcased by this bigot (who also happens to have an Adam's apple):

"Even if evolution were true, it wouldn't disprove God. God has performed more spectacular feats than evolution. It's not even a daunting challenge to a belief in God. If you want something that complicates a belief in God, try coming to terms with Michael Moore being one of God's special creatures." I guess she doesn't need all those vaccines that we've developed as a result of applying Darwin's profound discoveries.

"The New York Times and the rest of the mainstream media will only refer to partial birth abortion as 'what its opponents refer to as partial birth abortions.' What do its supporters call it? Casual Fridays? Bean-with-bacon potato chip dip? Uh . . . Steve?"

Insults aside, Coulter is implying that it's better to let women AND baby die from inoperable, untreatable conditions than to save a woman's life or relive her burden. Why should women be forced to carry a dead baby to term?

"No matter what argument you make against evolution, the response is Well, you know, it's possible to believe in evolution and believe in God. Yes, and it's possible to believe in Spiderman and believe in God, but that doesn't prove Spiderman is true."

The irony here is almost sufficient to feed the malnourished children of Africa. The necessity of evolution to produce god's ostensible masterpiece (human beings) calls god's competence and omnipotence into question.
0CommentWas this review helpful to you?YesNoSending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Report abuse
32 of 45 people found the following review helpful
on July 8, 2006
Format: Hardcover
This "Witch" is why I find it very difficult to swallow anything Conservatives have to say. Attack, attack, attack, anyone who happens to have a different opinion. No wonder this Nation is in such a miserable condition. And no I am not what one might call a Liberal. But instead of all these attacks from both sides of the aisle in Washington, why not find some common ground on the true issues which face Americans. Common Americans. Like poor education, lack of health care, and a singleminded healthcare system, run by the giant Pharmaceutical Companies. Non living wages, and missing retirement benifits, and tax cuts for the common American, not just for those in Ol'George's tax bracket.

Instead this woman attacks the widows of 9/11, and all who happen to disagree with, or criticize the "BOOB" in the White House. Saying these women found joy in being widows, because it has made them rich. Money can never replace a loved one, and to sit back and make such a charge is un-American, because last time I checked we are allowed to be critics of Government.

If Ann wants to do something positive for our Nation, she should move to Siberia, and have a brain transplant, maybe a Sloth would be a good donor. No I should not speak thusly of the Sloth.

Purchase this book, and see what America has become, how this person advocates destroying our Constitution. How everything the "Boob" in the White house has done, only has our best interests at heart. The fact he and his gang do not speak to the common citizens in this Nation, except to chisel away their wages, and retirement, and burden the next several generations with the national debt, is of no consiquence.

Do not speak ill of the "Knuckle Head" in the White House, nor his leading "Propagandist" Ann Coulter.

We have all heard it before, and we hear it each and every election season. So tune in, you already know what the book is about.
11 commentWas this review helpful to you?YesNoSending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Report abuse
25 of 35 people found the following review helpful
on June 25, 2006
Format: Hardcover
Ann Coulter's new book, "Godless: The Church of Liberalism", is selling like hotcakes.

Liberal intellectuals poo poo this as meaningless, that she's a nutter and, therefore, of no concern.

But somebody's buying those books, just like they bought Adolph's books 70 years ago. Why do you suppose?

How does reading this dreck influence their behavior?

Didn't the intellectual elites of Germany similarly dismiss Hitler's book? What happened to them? Weren't they on some of the first "trains" out?

BTW, can anybody tell me what the publisher has done that's interesting about the cover shot from the book?

Using the fundamentalist Christian or Jewish reference, they've committed the sins of bearing false witness and blasphemy (they've sinned against God).

It's the only cover she's done like this. I find it interesting that it's not yet been commented on by anybody in the media. They are ignoring the symbolism and the sinful heart and mind behind it.

I'll give you a hint. We all know about the beautiful, modernesque statue of Christ on the mountainside above Rio de Janiero, Brazil.

But the Christ of the Ann Coulter's Cleavage?

There is a crucifix perfectly framed within the deep plunging neckline of her blouse, pointing the way to her breasts.

Does Ann suggest that the Lord was thinking about her chest while being executed by the fundamentalists of his day for his liberal interpretation of their religion?

Was he thinking of breasts when being scouraged and crucified for enjoining his followers to keep the affairs of God and the State separate when he said, "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and unto God that which is God's?"

Does Jesus's torn and bleeding body deserve to be so mocked by Ann and her publisher's marketing executives in an attempt to get her followers to buy the book by keying in on their sexual suppression, owing to a God-Sex guilt dichotomy?

Does their lecherous desire to sell sex on the cover of her book, ostensibly a fantasy about how liberals suppress public and private religosity, trump the martyrdom of Jesus Christ for daring to love his enemies?

Or has Ann given us an insight into the psychological impluse behind fundamentalism: the suppression of the sex drive?

Freud suggested that some people will blow a mental gasket, and sometimes quite publicly, due to sexual suppression.

Coluter may have done so unconsciously on the cover of her book about religious suppression.

Fascinating!
0CommentWas this review helpful to you?YesNoSending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Report abuse
41 of 58 people found the following review helpful
Format: Hardcover
Only die hard fans of Coulter's, the clown princess of the Ultra Right,would accept without question such facts as "Christianity is illegal in the United States" and

"Public School teachers molest students between drinking binges and committing grand larceny", just two of her claims in this volume of cover to cover nonsense. Coulter tries to dress up her 320 page paranoid tirade with footnotes, a bibliography and a pseudo scientific tone but what this book is meant to do is sell lots of books by tapping into the hatred of people who, like Coulter herself, despise anyone who is not exactly like them. Coulter presents herself and her followers as poor, trod upon victims forced to pay taxes for things that they don't believe in (never considering how millions and millions of citizens feel about their tax dollar going to support the war in Iraq, one of Coulter's great causes)

The saddest part of this book is the section dealing with evolution. Coulter regurgitates the same outdated and long disproven arguments against evolution that have been used for the past 100 years, which is why she has steadfastly refused to publicly debate her ideas with academic authorities on the subject. She wants absolute proof that evolution is fact but nowhere does she back up her claim that the world was created in 6 days by a mystical being and apparently doesn't feel she should have to (talk about bad science)

Coulter's new book is distinct from the others of hers I've read only in this way: she tries to pass it off as a scientific text with a few features of academic style--footnotes, bibliography, etc. But it's no different than her other screeds which are little more than excuses for vicious name calling.

Coulter is not an authority on anything except tapping into the paranoia and free floating hatred of the ultra right who adore her to sell her product. She's a third rate political commentator who is making money hand over fist selling her superficial notions of the political and cultural state of the US to people who would never dream of questioning her claims. Her fame has been achieved via the Howard Stern formula for success: if you don't have the natural ability to be clever, be as rude and nasty as you can. If you're lucky it'll be awhile before anyone notices how vacuous you really are and by then, you'll be rich.
1414 commentsWas this review helpful to you?YesNoSending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Report abuse
     
 
Customers who viewed this also viewed
Never Trust a Liberal Over 3-Especially a Republican
Never Trust a Liberal Over 3-Especially a Republican by Ann Coulter (Hardcover - October 14, 2013)
$13.66

Mugged: Racial Demagoguery from the Seventies to Obama
Mugged: Racial Demagoguery from the Seventies to Obama by Ann Coulter (Paperback - August 27, 2013)
$12.04

 
     

Send us feedback

How can we make Amazon Customer Reviews better for you?
Let us know here.

Your Recently Viewed Items and Featured Recommendations 
 

After viewing product detail pages, look here to find an easy way to navigate back to pages you are interested in.