Losing Our Religion and over one million other books are available for Amazon Kindle. Learn more
Qty:1
  • List Price: $24.00
  • Save: $5.50 (23%)
FREE Shipping on orders over $35.
Only 2 left in stock.
Ships from and sold by Amazon.com.
Gift-wrap available.
Add to Cart
FREE Shipping on orders over $35.
Used: Very Good | Details
Sold by Take Cover!
Condition: Used: Very Good
Comment: Shipped by Amazon. Former Library book. Great condition for a used book! Minimal wear. Fast delivery and great value.
Add to Cart
Have one to sell? Sell on Amazon
Flip to back Flip to front
Listen Playing... Paused   You're listening to a sample of the Audible audio edition.
Learn more
See this image

Losing Our Religion: The Liberal Media's Attack on Christianity Hardcover – April 27, 2010


See all 6 formats and editions Hide other formats and editions
Amazon Price New from Used from
Kindle
"Please retry"
Hardcover, April 27, 2010
$18.50
$0.01 $0.01


Frequently Bought Together

Losing Our Religion: The Liberal Media's Attack on Christianity + Religions of the World (12th Edition)
Price for both: $118.07

Buy the selected items together
NO_CONTENT_IN_FEATURE

Image
Looking for the Audiobook Edition?
Tell us that you'd like this title to be produced as an audiobook, and we'll alert our colleagues at Audible.com. If you are the author or rights holder, let Audible help you produce the audiobook: Learn more at ACX.com.

Product Details

  • Hardcover: 288 pages
  • Publisher: Threshold Editions; 1 edition (April 27, 2010)
  • Language: English
  • ISBN-10: 1439173168
  • ISBN-13: 978-1439173169
  • Product Dimensions: 1.1 x 6.4 x 9.4 inches
  • Shipping Weight: 1 pounds (View shipping rates and policies)
  • Average Customer Review: 2.8 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (66 customer reviews)
  • Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #262,919 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

Editorial Reviews

About the Author

S.E. CUPP is a regular guest commentator on MSNBC, CNN, C-SPAN, and Fox News Channel programs including Hannity, Larry King Live, The Joy Behar Show, Red Eye with Greg Gutfeld, Geraldo and Reliable Sources. A nationally published political columnist and culture critic, she is currently an online columnist for the New York Daily News and senior writer at The Daily Caller. She coauthored Why You're Wrong About the Right with Brett Joshpe.

Excerpt. © Reprinted by permission. All rights reserved.

THOU SHALT NOT WORSHIP FALSE IDOLS
(BUT AMERICAN IDOL IS FINE)

Worship is, in this country, both a public and a private act of devotion. While many Americans pray privately in their homes, around a dinner table, or before they go to bed, they also worship publicly, in church, at their places of business, on the athletic field, at their local soup kitchen, and, for many, every time they say the Pledge of Allegiance or sing the National Anthem.

But worship of any kind, private or public, gets religious America into serious hot water with the liberal media, which has come to mock and resent public displays of faith, or any acknowledgment of God or religion by the state. The mere suggestion that the country is in fact a Christian one is declared backward, dangerous, and heretical to the Constitution of the United States.

Christmas and Christian holidays, prayer, public references to biblical scripture, the Ten Commandments, “In God We Trust,” one nation “under God,” “God Bless America”—it’s all now subject to ridicule and scrutiny by the liberal press, which has decided, without consulting the citizens of our country (80 percent of whom are Christian), that it’s no longer seemly or appropriate to worship out loud. Their collective distaste for displays of Christian devotion has grown from mild to maniacal in less than a decade, despite the fact that the Christian population in the United States has grown from 159,514,000 to 173,402,000 between 2001 and 2008.1

To be clear, the liberal media has no problem with worship—as long as it’s secular. The media worships a great many false idols in its daily broadcasts, front-page stories, news segments, and online features. The liberal media worships Hollywood and celebrity, breathlessly fawning over Angelina Jolie’s every inconsequential gesticulation or Lindsay Lohan’s less-than-shocking crimes and misdemeanors, or the latest castoff on the 147th The Bachelor. It worships its political demagogues, such as John F. Kennedy, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and Barack Obama, and takes turns propping them up on pedestals so that you may worship them, too. It worships liberalism and all its causes cÉlÈbres, such as environmentalism, gay marriage, abortion, and, the ACLU’s newest pet cause, jihadi rights. And, of course, it worships itself, with flashy correspondence dinners, magazine parties, self-satisfying award ceremonies, and giddy self-promotion. During the presidential election, CNN called itself “the best political team on television” as many as fifty times … in a single day.

But worship God? That’s something else entirely. Not only has the liberal media seemingly stripped the word from its lexicon, but when it does bring it up it’s to mock believers or champion the cause of the angry atheist, who, the media promises us, represents the new majority opinion about God and faith—that faith should be banished to the far corners of the earth (Alaska would suffice) so that it is spoken of only in hushed tones in one’s own bedroom. You know, like porn.

As a result of the liberal media’s relentless efforts to shame God to a place on the dusty bottom shelf of modern American civilization, it seems that we now have a president who is taking direct cues from the media’s vow of silence. And for that gift, the gift of God-omission, the liberal media rewards President Obama with positive coverage. Sure as the sun rises and sets, the cycle repeats.

OBAMA DEMOTES CHRISTIANITY,
LIBERAL MEDIA REJOICES

Obama’s first year in office was marked by the kinds of slaps to the faithful that we usually see only during an episode of Real Time with Bill Maher. But they were actually foreshadowed in a speech he gave in San Francisco on the campaign trail, in which he said, “You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for twenty-five years and nothing’s replaced them. And it’s not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or antitrade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

The comment was shocking both for its sheer stupidity—how did that get past his campaign managers when he was going to the Pennsylvania primary just days later?—and for its alarming classism. Religious Americans bristled at the notion that tough economic times make them “cling” to anything, let alone their faith. And they took particular issue with the idea that “antipathy to people who aren’t like them,” “anti-immigrant sentiment,” and “antitrade sentiment” were somehow equatable with religious devotion. At this moment, which Democratic challenger Hillary Clinton and Republican challenger John McCain both seized on readily, Obama seemed to reveal at best a lack of understanding of American faith, and at worst a real disdain for it. In short, he was in perfect lockstep with the liberal media.

So when he eventually became President Obama, the many continued indiscretions that would follow were swept quietly under the carpet by the liberal press, which saw in him a kindred secular spirit who wouldn’t bore them with God references every other minute like the last guy did. “Finally,” they sighed, “a president who is just as uncomfortable with public worship as we are.”

And on the very day he was sworn in, Obama delivered another slight to religious America when he became the first president in the history of the United States to mention atheists, calling America a nation of, among other things, nonbelievers. He would, over the course of his first year, go on to regularly put nonbelievers on the same plane as the religious faithful. This isn’t just an insult to believers. It should also be an insult to nonbelievers, who so militantly insist they are separate from those kooky God lovers, and intellectually superior to them. Lumping atheists into a group of so-called religious fanatics should be the last thing they want. But it’s also an inaccurate comparison. Equating belief with nonbelief is equating apples and oranges. One implies a moral value system, the other is marked explicitly by the lack of one. That doesn’t mean nonbelievers are immoral, of course, but it does mean they are structurally and intrinsically different entities. The president may as well acknowledge Beatles fans and dog lovers in the same breath if he’s going to acknowledge nonbelievers, for they have as much to do with American values as atheism does.

For that inaugural nod, the country’s self-avowed atheists—all 1.6 percent of them—rejoiced, and the liberal media was there to help them celebrate. Steven Waldman wrote of American atheists in the Huffington Post: “Not surprisingly, they greeted Obama’s inaugural declaration with some surprise and joy.” Waldman then quoted Ed Buckner of American Atheists as saying, “In his Inaugural Address today, President Barack Obama finally did what many before him should have done, rightly citing the great diversity of Americans as part of the nation’s great strength and including ‘non-believers’ in that mix. His mother would have been proud, and so are we.”2

Greg M. Epstein, Harvard University’s humanist chaplain (yes, apparently that’s a real post), similarly gushed in his Washington Post column, “I too was pleasantly surprised to see the President return, after a bit of wandering in recent months, to his previous practice of extending a rhetorical hand to my community in his oratory. As reiterated by my colleagues in the American Humanist Association’s recent ad campaign, Obama is the proud product of ‘parenting beyond belief’—his strong relationship with his Humanist mother S. Ann Dunham makes him living proof that family values without religion build character.”3

It seemed that, despite Barack Obama’s careful insistence during the campaign that he was a devoted Christian, with a simple mention of nonbelievers in his inaugural address atheists were ready to claim him as one of their own—he was living proof that being raised an atheist made him a better person!

And, in case anyone thinks the mention of atheists was a thoughtless or casual inclusion, David Axelrod, his senior adviser, admitted that Obama personally inserted the nonbeliever references into his inaugural speech.4

WAIT, WHERE DID JESUS GO?

The nonbeliever mention was just the beginning of Obama’s courtship of the liberal press, notoriously averse to God-talk.

In April 2009, Obama gave a major address on the economy at Georgetown University, a private Catholic college in Washington, D.C. After the address it was discovered that the White House advance team had asked the school to remove or cover all religious imagery and signage, specifically a monogram symbolizing Jesus’ name in Gaston Hall, where Obama spoke. The school did, in fact, cover the monogram with a piece of black-painted plywood.

The incident caused an uproar among Catholics, who denounced both the Obama administration for making such a demand and the school for conceding. Why did the president choose to speak at the Catholic school if he was going to insist on hiding its religious nature?

Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League, criticized Obama for asking the school to “neuter itself.” “No bishop who might speak at the White House would ever request that a crucifix be displayed behind him,” he said.5

For America’s Christians, it read as though Obama was uncomfortable with religion, or at the very least wished to dissociate himself from it. Religion scholars of all kinds dissected the moment, interpr... --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.


More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

Customer Reviews

Much of her book, like this example, lacks credibility.
jayday
My ten bucks would have been better used for buying myself a small pierogi roll, and hitting myself in the head every time I think of reading a book from S.E Cupp...
Hersheybar10
The worst offense of this author is she is a self-proclaimed atheist writing a book defending the nonsense argument that Christianity is under attack here.
The Rationalist

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

29 of 38 people found the following review helpful By Pauline Triage on November 26, 2012
Format: Paperback
For a conservative pundit, S E Cupp is on the saner and more circumspect end of the scale. Reading this book will enlighten you as to how little that's actually saying - she's still crazy. And when I say crazy, I don't mean crazy in the screamy, invective-spewing, marginally entertaining manner in which fellows-in-indeological-arms like Glenn Beck or Ann Coulter are crazy. I'm talking the definition of crazy you use when just coming out and saying "stupid" doesn't seem to quite cover it. For starters, she begins her book (well, after the sickeningly fatuous foreword by Mike Huckabee, which you should feel free to skip if you want for some reason to read this book)by citing something Fidel Castro said about faith that actually has nothing to do with anything she goes on to write about in the book. Apparently she's trying to make the argument that the "liberal media" has declared war on the Christian faith in American life and that "faith" in...well, something...is their primary motivator for doing this. She likes the analogy so much that she reiterates it in the concluding chapter without having bothered to explain its significance in her argument.

What Cupp does not do, at any juncture in this book, is fulfill the promise of its second-line title and actually explain WHY she thinks "the media" - a spurious phrase apparently meant to encompass not just news outlets but reality TV, popular culture, and most of the internet - is conspiring against Christianity in America. Her writing is heavily reminiscent of that of an idiot from the other end of the spectrum, anti-porn klaxon and middle-aged hysteric Gail Dines, in that it is almost exclusively anecdotal, needlessly verbose, and hilariously alarmist. Or to put it in the words of a better scribe, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Read more ›
1 Comment Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback. If this review is inappropriate, please let us know.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
108 of 151 people found the following review helpful By MassReader on May 25, 2010
Format: Hardcover
Like most books about current events, this one has a mediocre rating because most people give it either one star or five; which indicates that most of the reviewers (especially those negative) didn't even bother to read the book.

Based on the merits of the book (not the author's politics), I'm going to give the book three stars. It could be worse, but it could be a lot better.

First, it's important to realize that oral and written communications are not the same. When you see Ms Cupp on TV, she can really shoot off at the mouth. Don't get me wrong, I agree with most of her views, and I could watch her all day. But this book has the style of Cupp shooting off at the mouth. And it probably was merely dictated, not composed on a keyboard. The result, when transcribed into written form, is something repetitive, monotonous, meandering, and sometimes contradictory on minor points. For example, on page 14 Cupp states that 80% of our country is Christian; and in the same paragraph says that's 173 million Christians. These figures are repeated elsewhere in the book. With a total population of 300 million, 80% of the country would be about 240 million Christians; or 173 million Christians would be about 58% of the country. Cupp should choose one set of consistent figures and stick with it.

Cupp also misses a few chances to knock the ball out of the park, probably because she composed orally. For example, "when a Mathematica report ... suggested that teenagers who had taken a pledge of abstinence were almost or just as likely to acquire a sexually transmitted disease as those who hadn't pledged, the liberal media jumped on it." (p.
Read more ›
6 Comments Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback. If this review is inappropriate, please let us know.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
11 of 14 people found the following review helpful By S.A. McInnis on July 28, 2013
Format: Hardcover
Amateurish, uninformed and lacks the level of knowledge that a reasoned rebuttal to the liberal media would require. Details best explained in previous reviews so I won't rehash. This author should go back to school and acquire some writing and reasoning skills.
1 Comment Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback. If this review is inappropriate, please let us know.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
28 of 39 people found the following review helpful By Kendal B. Hunter on October 22, 2011
Format: Hardcover
Sarah Elizabeth Cupp is one of the new voices of the younger conservatism. And the even-younger voices of the new conservatism would do well to watch her. He writing style is energetic, quick, occasionally sly, and always pithy. Bloggers should emulate her style. She has it down, and gets the message out, and gets it right--pun sort of intended.

And I appreciate how she does not ape Ann Coulter; she is her own woman.

This book is more than conservative cheer-leading. Of course she says nothing new. But that is the point: "ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls" (Jeremiah 6:16). When conservatives (or the left for that matter--we all do this) read these books, we do it for several purposes. Of course we do need cheer-leading. And the affirmation.

But we also look for new insights. Truth is both old and new. And "old and familiar subjects may be dressed in new clothes; they need not always be presented in the self-same way." We look for new ways of expressing old ideas, and look for new connections between old ideas. So each book is part of continuing education. We get new data--ammunition for intellect.

So now a comment from the Logic Gallery.

Ms. Cupp admits "in the interest of full disclosure" that she is an atheist (10). She is up-front about it. But I'm not sure she see the problem.

In short, this book is a non sequitur, a classic example of "stolen concept" (Philosophy: Who Needs It (The Ayn Rand Library Vol. 1), 22). She is defending something--and defending exuberantly--something she does not believe in.
Read more ›
5 Comments Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback. If this review is inappropriate, please let us know.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again

Customer Images

Most Recent Customer Reviews


What Other Items Do Customers Buy After Viewing This Item?