3,622 of 4,471 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars Republican Jesus wins out
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...
Published on June 7, 2006 by Gen. JC Christian, patriot
220 of 302 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
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...
Published on July 19, 2006 by Junis L. Baldon
Most Helpful First | Newest First
3,622 of 4,471 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars Republican Jesus wins out,
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?
220 of 302 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,
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.
31 of 43 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars Irrelevant Ranting,
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.
76 of 108 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars More Fiction,
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.
54 of 77 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars by Matthew Provonsha,
a review of
Godless: The Church of Liberalism
by Matthew Provonsha
Ann Coulter's new book is vulgar propaganda that goes against both science and reason. She has made a living as the cruel darling of the Religious Right, and in this book she aims her harsh rhetoric against, among other things, evolutionary biology, atheism, and what she calls "liberalism." The entire book in fact is a sustained attack on a group that doesn't even exist, namely "liberals," in the sense of the word that Coulter has made up.
In her own words, Coulter's thesis is that "Liberalism IS a religion." She even refers to liberalism as "the state-sanctioned religion." This is borderline conspiracy theory, from the woman who called the Branch Davidians "harmless American citizens." In a kind of transubstantiation, we are supposed to believe that despite all outward appearances, our government is actually controlled by atheists. She says, "Democrats revile religion," and "liberals love to boast that they are not `religious.'"
This is absurd. Coulter sticks to generalizations because she can't give any cogent examples. Martin Luther King Jr. was undeniably Christian and liberal, but I doubt she had him in mind when she wrote, "I would be crestfallen to discover any liberals in heaven." Ann Coulter is going to heaven and Martin Luther King Jr. is not? For shame.
Coulter can't name a godless president or member of Congress. The last two Democratic presidents have been born-again Christians, and the vast majority of liberals are Christian, yet Coulter defines "liberals" as people who reject notions of God and an immortal soul. Meanwhile, the overtly Christian Republican Party is in control of all three branches of government. In this aspect of the book, as in others, it is exceedingly difficult to take Coulter seriously, and it is hardly surprising that many commentators on the left and right have questioned her sincerity.
ID proponent William Dembski wrote on his blog that he takes full responsibility for any errors in the last few chapters of the book, which deal with evolution. Several websites have pointed out plenty of them, so if he was being honest, he has got his work cut out for him. But it doesn't matter how much evidence there is against Coulter because she just lies when the truth gets in the way of her agenda. She lies brazenly in the book about the Dover trial, which ruled the teaching of ID in science classrooms unconstitutional. According to Coulter: "They won the way liberals always win: by finding a court to hand them everything they want on a silver platter." Here Ann Coulter shows herself to be either completely incompetent or deliberately deceptive. The judge that presided over Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District is a life-long Republican and a church-goer, appointed to the federal bench in 2002 by President George W. Bush. Clifford A. Rieders, the former president of the Pennsylvania Trial Lawyers Association and a Democrat, said Judge Jones is "universally well regarded." Coulter's attempt to smear him is transparently motivated by her ideological concerns, not the facts.
Like other bigots, Ann Coulter attacks what she perceives to be easy targets. In the past she has attacked Arabs, Muslims, and homosexuals, and in this book she saves some of her harshest words for environmentalists and America's most mistrusted minority, atheists. She writes, "The theory of vegetarianism is that Americans consume `too much' energy." To the contrary, vegetarianism is not a theory at all, it is the practice of not eating meat. There are a variety of reasons for practicing vegetarianism, and an individual vegetarian's choice to avoid meat may have nothing at all to do with concerns about over-consumption or inefficient consumption. She adds, "Environmentalists' energy plan is the repudiation of America and Christian destiny, which is Jet Skis, steak on the electric grill, hot showers, and night skiing."
This consumerist position is untenable in light of much of Christian and American intellectual history. Coulter can't point to a verse in the New Testament promoting self-indulgence that could justify the conspicuous consumption of the rich while tens of thousands die every day due to malnutrition and easily treatable diseases. Jesus exhorts his followers, "Sell that which you have, and give gifts to the needy," and seek treasures in heaven instead of on earth. Nowhere in Coulter's book does she express concern for the troubled people of the third world where there are food and drug shortages, or for the poor in this country who can't even afford healthcare, much less jet skis or night skiing.
Coulter's religion is not like that of the author of the Book of Proverbs, who prayed for neither poverty nor riches but, "only the necessaries of life." Her religion is not like St. Thomas Aquinas's, who went so far as to say that anything held in superabundance must be given to provide for the sustenance of the poor. If we are to infer "Christian destiny" by looking at Christian history, we see that Coulter's ideal is nothing like the ideal put forth by most Christian leaders of the past. St. Francis of Assisi prayed, "O Divine Master, grant that I may not so much seek," but Coulter has said that the Biblical view is to "rape the planet."
Coulter's distortion of history in order to misrepresent atheism is particularly disturbing. She wants us to believe that the horrors of Nazi Germany, the USSR, and the People's Republic of China are in some way due to atheism and acceptance of evolution. "Hitler's world-view was based on Darwinism, not God," she writes. This is clearly a lie designed to denounce Darwinism by association. It is contrary to Hitler's own words, as even a cursory reading of Mein Kampf shows. In it Hitler writes, "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." Though she claims that Hitler cited Darwin, she can't substantiate it, and thus this is yet another baseless assertion. Hitler was obviously either heavily influenced by Christian beliefs, or wanted to appear as though he was. Along with various other influences, Nazism undoubtedly drew from a long-standing Christian tradition of anti-Semitism. As far as I can discern, Hitler never even mentioned Darwin; rather, he repeatedly claimed to be doing the will of Providence.
Coulter's attempt to blame Darwin for the horrific famines in China is ironic given that they occurred partly because Communist scientists rejected Darwin. Denying what they called "capitalist science," they paved the way for agricultural catastrophe. Coulter even suggests that Darwin is to blame for "Stalinist gulags." In reality, Stalin sent scientists to gulags for espousing Darwinian evolution.
Throughout the book Coulter never argues her points, but makes ad hominem attacks and false analogies, attacks straw-men and blatantly misrepresents history. She can't even distinguish between Darwinism and Social Darwinism. She is as bad on ethics as she is on science, and is completely inept regarding logical reasoning. When she says atheists are always the ones practicing genocide, she shows that she hasn't even read her scriptures.
There is no "church of liberalism," there isn't even "liberalism," in Coulter's sense. Liberals are not "pro-abortion," and no atheist hates God. Godless is a ridiculous book and Ann Coulter lies flagrantly and is as self-righteous as she is malicious. The most controversial line in the book is her condemnation of four 9/11 widows who chose to involve themselves in politics: "I have never seen people enjoying their husbands' death so much." But it's not the only nasty thing she wrote in the book and she has said even worse things in the past. She has used epithets like "raghead," "paki," and "gay boy." She actually said, "My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building."
Coulter's fans apparently consider death threats and violent rhetoric humorous, and she doesn't disappoint them. She is a hate-mongering reactionary who has said she is for public flogging, and against women's suffrage. I wish I were making this up. Godless is a boring collection of rants filled with utterly mind-boggling absurdities, like, "public schools are the Left's madrassas," "The most important value to liberals is destroying human life" (in reference to abortion), and "liberals made up Watergate." We needn't worry about misinterpreting her words because she has repeatedly told interviewers that she believes everything she wrote in the book. She has even said that she never regrets anything she has ever said and she wouldn't have said anything differently. Even if the cynics are right to say that Coulter is laughing all the way to the bank and that she doesn't really believe any of it, it still reflects horribly on our media that gives her a national platform, and on our culture in which she is thriving with a lucrative speaking career and best-selling books.
59 of 84 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars Clearly, faith in God excuses ignorance,
Perhaps the most frightening (and sad) thing about this book is that there are people who read it and feel vindicated in their views. If you need to feel affirmed, at least try to find something a little more scholarly on which to rely.
Just so all you angry conservatives know, liberals are much closer to living the teachings of Jesus than are conservatives who pay no regard to stewardship of the earth, to the alleviation of human suffering, and to turning the other cheek.
Liberal or conservative, don't waste your time with this pseudo-intellectual wallowing in ignorance.
74 of 106 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars Lots of plagiarism in this book,
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
92 of 132 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars Witless, Condescending Attack on Liberalism and Science,
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.
31 of 44 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars Propaganda,
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.
40 of 57 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars The Howard Stern of Far Right Political Journalism.,
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.
Most Helpful First | Newest First
Godless: The Church of Liberalism by Ann Coulter (Hardcover - May 2, 2006)
Used & New from: $0.39