Amazon.com: Customer Reviews: Godless: The Church of Liberalism
Your Garage Summer Reading Amazon Fashion Learn more Discover it $5 Albums Fire TV Stick Sun Care Patriotic Picks Shop-by-Room Amazon Cash Back Offer WienerDog WienerDog WienerDog  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Introducing new colors All-New Kindle Oasis AutoRip in CDs & Vinyl Best Camping & Hiking Gear in Outdoors

Your rating(Clear)Rate this item


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

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?
156156 comments|3,637 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on April 12, 2016
SPOT ON! (as always) Coulter does it again by blowing the whistle on what we all know, want to say, but don't know to whom! This lights a fire under me to make want to write every Senator and beyond and say what she's saying to save America. She is so smart, so gorgoues and I LOVE her books! This book has gotten me hooked on Ann Coulter audiobooks. I LOVE that SHE reads the book! AWESOME! KEEP WRITING COULTER! I can't wait to meet her at a book signing!!
0Comment|One person found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on July 19, 2006
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 comments|236 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on September 22, 2006
Ann Coulter seems to embrace the God of Deuteronomy, which is far from Christianity's main tenet, "Love thy neighbor." What should disturb all readers is the way she distorts facts and fills her arguments with hate. "Democrats revile religion," she says, ignoring the fact that Carter, Clinton, and Kennedy were all religious Presidents. And what about Dr. Martin Luther King? Is this an example of a liberal Christian (he's a Reverend, if you recall) democrat who should go to hell?

Here's another example of how she distorts facts. When teaching intelligent design in high schools was deemed unconstitutional, Coulter said that the liberals won because they found a democratic judge to "hand them everything they want on a silver platter." However the presiding judge was a church-attending Republican, appointed by President Bush. Even more offensive--in fact, downright anti-semitic--is her ignorance about Hitler, whom she calls a godless Darwinian. Let's quote Hitler directly, from Mein Kampf: ""Hence today I believe I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord." Coulter doesn't care about facts, and she knows that you, the reader, won't take the time to validate her claims.

What worries me is that the more Coulter rants, the more she and her readers seem to believe these distortions fact. I ask you this? What good can mudslinging do? It won't win any liberal converts, that's for sure. But more important, what peace does it bring? Am I wrong that the central theme of Christianity is kindness, compassion, and tolerance? How does this book help a person be a better Christian? A better example of how Christianity and science can co-exist can be found in THE LANGUAGE OF GOD written by the religious geneticist Francis Collins. Now there's a person who knows how to maintain the faith while keeping his facts straight. And if you want an expose of how Ann Coulter's brain works, check outWhy We Believe What We Believe: Uncovering Our Biological Need for Meaning, Spirituality, and Truth and Born to Believe: God, Science, and the Origin of Ordinary and Extraordinary Beliefs.
44 comments|51 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on July 8, 2006
I have always thought Ann Coulter was an intellectual lightweight -- to paraphrase T.S. Eliot's comment about Henry James, "...had the purest mind of anyone I know, unsullied by thought". After giving her latest book a thorough read, its shallow and predictably pretentious contents offered me no opportunity to alter my opinion.

But, by god, Coulter sure gives it the old community college try. I don't think I have ever read such a laboured effort. She works so hard to be clever, shocking and cynical. Such obvious strain makes the book sort of depressing and cringe-making rather than the glittering triumph of wit and wisdom it so desperately yearns to become. One just feels rather sorry for her. Imagine being reduced to using cat-calls at the widows of 911 victims for effect? It has all the sophistication of Madonna crucifying herself in her silly touring show or a local performance artist taking potshots at the Pope. We're supposed to think it's all so edgy and dangerous. Nothing, of course, is further from the truth. It's all so silly and shrill.

If one would like to read genuinely interesting and erudite discussions of religion and society, perhaps one might do better to turn to the above mentioned T.S. Eliot and classical philosophers such as Aquinas, David Hume or Kant. There are the truly bright and finely educated modern philosophers like Alfred Lord Whitehead, Eliseo Vivas or Donald Atwell-Zoll to peruse and ponder. In short, a vertible army of vastly superior thinkers and writers.

Ann Coulter is the Paris Hilton of intellectualism -- shilling her shoddy pastiches of better minds, gimlet eyes forever locked on the main chance.
11 comment|64 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on July 9, 2006
Once again Ann Coulter is on a quest to satanize the political left. She fails to mention that many Democrats (because that's who she's talking about, liberals have a legitimate political party you know) are very religious. I know Democrats who are Jewish, Catholic, Methodist, etc. Of course maybe those aren't "real religions." Something tells me fundamentalist baptists are the only people she considers to be religious. Maybe Coulter should read the part of the bible where it states "Give to Ceasar what is Ceasar's and to God what is God's" The is the separation of church and state doctrine from Jesus's own mouth. Of course religion isn't taught in schools, the United States isn't a theocracy. I would love to have a cry-pity session with Coulter over the "poor abused white Christians in this country whose rights are being constantly violated." Then I realize that this country hasn't enslaved whites, or put them in internment camps, or restricted their civil rights. Jesus said "Whenever you do this for the least of these, you do it for me." That means that even child molesters are human beings. Sorry Ann. I don't think Miss. Coulter is qualified to speak on what is and isn't science. Her rejection of Darwinism in favor of Creationism, "Intelligent Design", etc. just shows her inability to cope with anything that isn't overtly Christian. I wonder how Miss. Coulter would feel if a Muslim child stood up and prayed to Allah each morning on our schools. I imagine she would feel like the Muslim kid when Christians pray to Jesus each morning. Sorry Ann, majority rules MINORITY RIGHTS. That last part is where you seem to have fallen off the bandwagon. In the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson rights "ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL" that includes gays, abortion advocates, environmentalists, illegals, African-Americans, Muslims, atheists, EVERYBODY. I don't understand why Coulter feels such a need to press her views on others. Even the neocons have rejected Coulter's philosophy and try to distance themselves from this person who just can't seem to accept that not everyone is the same. This book makes for great fiction reading.
44 comments|80 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on August 24, 2008
You can't fault Ann Coulter's passion for her political views however, BUT you can completely dismiss her scientific views. You can agree or disagree with political views but when it comes to making factual statements about the natural world you either stick to the science or spout a bunch of logical fallacies. And it is logical fallacies that this book is peppered with when Ann Coulter's pen turns to anything related to science.

Ann Coulter makes the big mistake of making all her arguments from a value-based (politics and religious) position. Science is not a matter of conjecture or democratic vote. She does this by making fallacious claims about evolution simply because the bible says something different. She then goes on to describe evolution as a 'godless religion' that is worshipped by liberals. If this is her argument for conservatism then she is making a big error in judgement.

If it was a simple dichotomy such that Liberals accept evolution while Conservatives do not, then we could quite happily say Liberals accept facts while Conservatives do not. Apparently this is the case.

Secondly, if evolution were to be a religion with Darwin as its prophet, why isn't she trumpeting the same argument with Newton (Gravitation), Einstein (Relativity) and Watson/Crick (DNA)? Presumably these are all prophets and religions too given Liberals would accept their discoveries as valid? Evolution is purely singled out because it provides a natural explanation to life that directly contradicts the bible. By this logic, we ought also accept the bible definition of pi at 3 and completely massacre all of geometry and engineering.

You have every reason to be skeptical of someone who makes a bunch of claims and then attacks the science that undermines their position. Any ideology that requires a smear campaign on real world evidence needs to be seriously criticised. In Ann Coulter's case, the case could be argued that because she should know better, her flagrant abuse of science and reason is completely unethical. How does that fit into the conservative "moral" case?

Of course, any criticism of biblical claims to fact is viewed as Godless by Ann Coulter. I would hope the need for criticism of blatant abuses of reason isn't only a Liberal value but if it is then Conservatives really need to examine their own beliefs.

P.S. For those who claim Evolution is "just a theory": A Theory in Science is a label applied to a hypothesis heavily supported by experimental evidence from multiple strands of inquiry. In 150 years, Evolution has been criticised and analysed by scientists (this is how the scientific method works). It remains standing as the unified theory of biology, something physicists are striving to attain in their field. If you wish to undermine evolution, you must necessarily dismiss genetics, the fossil record, molecular biology, ethology, zoology, germ theory... One must be incredibly confident of the antithesis claim to say they can dismiss an entire field of science.
3838 comments|23 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on August 8, 2006
I was walking through Costco the other day and this book caught my eye. All it took was reading the inner flap with some blurbs from within and I was more offended than I think I have ever been.

She makes the claim that liberalism is a religion and that abortion is its sacrament. Wow. A sacrament, to my knowledge, is something practiced out of reverence. It is almost always a celebration. In Catholicism particularly, you have Baptism, Reconciliation, Eucharist, Confirmation, Matrimony, etc. All of these are occasions for joy. They all mean more than the words spoken at the ceremony. They are spiritual. They are life-changing.

I'll argue that even the most left-wing "bleeding heart" wouldn't celebrate an abortion. Some women make the choice. I promise you damn few of them feel good about it. The notion of abortion as a sacrament literally makes me physically ill. It's beyond offensive; it is revolting.

The very next thing I read was that evolution is "bogus science." Funny. We can actually watch bacteria in a petri dish transform thier DNA so that they become more viable organisms. Not in years or millenia but in hours. I am not making this up. Any of you who may think I'm full of it, I urge you to make a list, at random, of 10 Christian Universities. Call and ask for thier Microbiology department and ask them. They will confirm. All.

This is what evolution is. Just because we were derived from lower animals doesn't mean there is no God. It just means that the the Book of Genesis is more parable than literal. Why can't evolution fit into the ideas of how God got us to where we are now? I don't understand how the acceptance of evolution has come to equate atheism in the minds of so many.

When I attempt to answer this question I come to only one conclusion: that these individuals feel somehow lesser because they have been grouped with animals. How arrogant. We're the evil sons of bitches. Animals are innocent. They don't know lies and deceit and war but, boy. We certainly do.

I thought religion was about being a better person, not throwing rocks at those who don't believe exactly what we do.

It's a sad state, my friends. Just sad. . .
1616 comments|81 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on July 8, 2006
COPYCATTY COULTER PILFERS PROSE: PRO

By PHILIP RECCHIA

July 2, 2006 -- Conservative scribe Ann Coulter cribbed liberally in her latest book, "Godless," according to a plagiarism expert.

John Barrie, the creator of a leading plagiarism-recognition system, claimed he found at least three instances of what he calls "textbook plagiarism" in the leggy blond pundit's "Godless: the Church of Liberalism" after he ran the book's text through the company's digital iThenticate program.

He also says he discovered verbatim lifts in Coulter's weekly column, which is syndicated to more than 100 newspapers, including the Fort Lauderdale (Fla.) Sun-Sentinel and Augusta (Ga.) Chronicle.

Barrie, CEO of iParadigms, told The Post that one 25-word passage from the "Godless" chapter titled "The Holiest Sacrament: Abortion" appears to have been lifted nearly word for word from Planned Parenthood literature published at least 18 months before Coulter's 281-page book was released.

A separate, 24-word string from the chapter "The Creation Myth" appeared about a year earlier in the San Francisco Chronicle with just one word change - "stacked" was changed to "piled."

Another 33-word passage that appears five pages into "Godless" allegedly comes from a 1999 article in the Portland (Maine) Press Herald.

Meanwhile, many of the 344 citations Coulter includes in "Godless" "are very misleading," said Barrie, who holds a Ph.D. from the University of California at Berkeley, where he specialized in pattern recognition.

"They're used purely to try and give the book a higher level of credibility - as if it's an academic work. But her sloppiness in failing to properly attribute many other passages strips it of nearly all its academic merits," he told The Post.

Barrie says he also ran Coulter's Universal Press columns from the past 12 months through iThenticate and found similar patterns of cribbing.

Her Aug. 3, 2005, column, "Read My Lips: No New Liberals," about U.S. Supreme Court Justice David Souter, includes six passages, ranging from 10 to 48 words each, that appeared 15 years earlier in the same order in an L.A. Times article, headlined "Liberals Leery as New Clues Surface on Souter's Views."

But nowhere in that column does she mention the L.A. Times or the story's writer, David G. Savage.

Her June 29, 2005, column, "Thou Shalt Not Commit Religion," incorporates 10 facts on National Endowment for the Arts-funded work that originally appeared in the same order in a 1991 Heritage Foundation report, "The National Endowment for the Arts: Misusing Taxpayers' Money." But again, the Heritage Foundation isn't credited.

"Just as Coulter plays free and loose with her citations in 'Godless,' she obviously does the same in her columns," Barrie said.

Coulter did not respond to requests for comment.

Additional reporting by Susannah Cahalan
11 comment|76 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on January 1, 2007
I love Ann Coulter -- she is stupid, self-righteous, ill-informed, lazy, has a mean spirit and a hard heart -- she is a walking poster child for liberalism -- if this is conservatism, who wants it? She doesn't let a pure thought, science or facts deter her from opening her mouth and outright lying, stretching the truth, completely obliterating it or twisting it around to suit her own purpose. And what is her purpose? To bare her chest and flaunt her evil religion of hatred and mean-ness? Or might it be to say the most outrageous thing she can think of in order to make money?? I think to make money. She is a joke, lame, vapid, insensitive, rude, mean and without any intellectual capacity. She's best at sterotyping and slinging dirt -- so what. She's boring and trite and wrong. I did think the book was hilarious -- do people really think like that??? You've got to be kidding me. How sad. I didn't spend a penny on the book, but I hope conservative lackies snap it up left and right. Listen, she's out for a buck -- she doesn't have a heart, her book is seriouosly flawed and ridiculous -- ignore her and she'll go away -- or --better yet, let her go on and on and on -- the more she talks the more she reveals about herself, her dirty politics, her absence of any intelligence or thought. If this is the religion she preaches, I don't want to join. She's ugly and her book is stupid -- don't take it too seriously though. Money is money and she's making it hand over fist -- no wonder the world is in such poor shape -- people like Coulter run the place while the rest of us just shake our heads and wonder --
22 comments|32 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse