Customer Reviews

Losing Our Religion: The Liberal Media's Attack on Christianity

5 star:		(15)
4 star:		(6)
3 star:		(5)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(25)

 

 

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. 137) Cupp should have followed up by simply saying, even by liberal standards, a pledge is just as effective as most other sex education.

Cupp also falls into the common mode of thinking that anything that's not pro something is automatically anti. I don't doubt that there are elements on the Left trying to destroy Chistianity in the public square. But not all the characters behind all the issues in this book are among them. But enough of them are, and Cupp should have devoted more space to those individuals and their impact.

Then there is the chapter on evolution. Cupp doesn't make the point clearly enough that the percentage of people who ascribe to creationism make it something worth respecting, but not necessarily true. Her harping on the percent of people who believe in it, is like hearing the Left insist that global warming is true because of "consensus." Consensus doesn't make creationism any more true or acceptable than evolution or global warming. The arguments about evolution are not an "attack" on Christianity, because most Christians (as Cupp finally concedes) see no incompatibility between evolution and faith. After pages of defending the case for creationism in the schools, the chapter concludes with the wisdom of Sarah Palin explaining exactly why evolution instead of creationism should be taught in the schools. (This was provided as a defense against attacks on Palin's being anti-science, not as a defense of evolution. So Cupp had gone full circle on the issue. She states that she herself accepts evolution, so perhaps her heart wasn't in the battle.) The whole science v. religion debate is a boring non-starter, continually stoked by extremists on both sides, hoping to rile other extremists.

Another chapter that is completely tangential is that dedicated to the attack on Fox News. This is not directly related to religion at all, so probably deserves no more space than a couple pages or some other quick aside. Yes, the administration and other networks attack Fox News, and in part because Fox doesn't denigrate faith; but such attacks against Fox are not direct attacks on faith. At worst, these might be indirect attacks on faith, but we don't place our Faith in Fox.

While criticizing those who attacked Palin's church or Pentecostal denomination as an irrelevancy, Cupp then devotes several pages to attacking Obama's church or denomination. If we should accept Palin's own statements on her faith, then we have no choice but to judge Obama's faith on his own statements. By lobbing salvos against Obama's religion, Cupp reduced herself and her arguments to the level of those on the Left whom she accuses of causing us to "lose our religion." Her panning of Obama for changing denominations or churches (p. 187) loses much of its bite when she earlier describes Palin's doing much the same (p. 184). If her point is that Palin takes her faith more seriously and changes churches for internal reasons, as opposed to Obama's appearance of changing for political expedience, fair enough. But again, that doesn't require a whole chapter.

Time after time, Cupp pounds the "liberal media" for its influential role in destroying American religion, yet she also (rightly) claims such media are "driven...into financial ruin and ratings obscurity." (p. 169) If the liberal media is so reduced, what do we really have to worry about? If a few dozen Christians can survive and then thrive against the forces of the whole Roman Empire, I don't think they have much to worry about in America yet. In the final analysis, if the country "loses its religion," it will be only because of bad faith formation in the members of our houses of worship. If the next generation is taught to hold and honor its faith and to respect the faith of others, no power on earth will shake it. In other words, Cupp fails to prove the thesis suggested by the book's title; in fact, on the contrary, she says the number of Christians has increased in the 8 year period of 2001 to 2008 by 14 million people. (p. 14)

Cupp's book is not a bad read. It moves along and in places is even fun.This book is mostly one pundit railing against other pundits, and it can disappoint the reader who expects more. However, if you want a more serious work on the title subject, I would recommend David Limbaugh's Persecution: How Liberals Are Waging War Against Christianity. Attorney Limbaugh does a thorough job of detailing legal efforts against Christianity by law enforcement agencies, the courts, and other policy implementers. You might also check out The Criminalization of Christianity by Janet Folger, but it's not as comprehensive or balanced as Limbaugh's work.

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 [PHILOSOPHY] [Mass Market Paperback], 22). She is defending something--and defending exuberantly--something she does not believe in.

("If this be hypocrisy, make the most of it")

This is not something unique to Ms. Cupp. Rabbi Daniel Lapin did the same thin earlier in AMERICA'S REAL WAR. He, as an orthodox rabbi, defends the need for traditional Christianity. Also Catholic Bill Bennett called for a Protestant Reformation in Islam (Why We Fight: Moral Clarity and the War on Terrorism).

But there is a danger here. On a fundamental level, Ms. Cupp disagrees with with what she is proclaiming. Read page 16. She criticizes Obama for putting believers and nonbelievers on the same societal footing. "This isn't just an insult to believers. It should also be an insult to nonbelievers, who so militantly insist they are 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."

Touché!

This paragraph reminds me of the discussion Yossarian and Mrs Scheisskopf have: "I don't believe in God ... But the God I don't believe in is a good God, a just God, a merciful God. He's not the mean and stupid God you make him out to be." (Catch-22: 50th Anniversary Edition, 224).

"Loosing Our Region"? But Ms. Cupp has already lost her's!

Part of the problem is that Ms. Cupp wants to have it both ways. She wants the mileage that a person gets from being an atheist (Bertrand Russell comes to mind). But she also want the mileage that comes from religion, and Christianity. And this indecision gets her into trouble. She tries to defend Michelle Bacchman's husband's clinic (Martin Bashir interview July 13, 2011). She says it is based on junk science, but still defends her. She defends junk science.

There are also the nagging weaknesses of atheism (Real Face of Atheism, The, The Case for Christ: A Journalist's Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus). One is the problem of proving a negative-0-violating the law of identity. The other is that when she gets pressed, she starts talking "soft agnosticism" (See her interview on MoxNewsDotCom where she confesses she is envious of religion people, has a degree in religious studies, and she aspires to be a person of faith one day, and would never vote for an atheist.).

Here the danger. Religion--Christianity--can merely become a tactic. We embrace the faith, not because it is true, but because it is both historical and useful. So there is no truth, just rock-star pundits with silver tongues and acid sound bites.

C. S. Lewis warned that there is a danger of seeing Christianity as merely "good" (or we might add useful) as opposed to being true (God in the Dock: Essays on Theology and Ethics, "Christian Apologetic"). He also added that "I think we must attack wherever we meet it the nonsensical idea that mutually exclusive propositions about God can both be true." This includes Ms. Cupp's idea that although she doesn't believe in God, she finds belief in Him useful.

It's Mrs Scheisskopf again: "I don't believe in God ... But the God I don't believe in is a good God."

And there is the existential aspect to Ms. Cupp.

Krister Stendahl spoke of "holy envy," or recognizing "elements in the other religious tradition or faith that you admire and wish could, in some way, be reflected in your own religious tradition or faith." If Ms. Cupp is doing this, then we congratulate her for seeing good, admiring it, and trumpeting it.

The second comes from logic. If she squares herself with the laws of identity, excluded middle, and non-contradiction, she should be fine. She sees something in the so-called "God Hypothesis." The question will be if she makes the leap.

There is hope. But will she practice what she preached?

I'm posting this review because S.E. Cupp not only mentions me in this book, but lies -- both outrightly and by omission -- about the organization I work for, and I want to set the record straight.

Here's the passage from the book in which me and the organization I work for are mentioned:

"But the Huffington Post did publish a column by Chris Rodda, the senior research director of something called the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, and, unrelatedly I'm sure, the author of 'Liars for Jesus.' For MRFF, which had already successfully campaigned to stop the Pentagon from sending Bibles to soldiers in Iraq, the move was finally the recognition that this special-interest group had been waiting for: 'So, while those who seek to use the U.S. military to inseparably combine religion with patriotism might find the Pentagon's decision `deeply troubling and disturbing' and will certainly get a lot of mileage out of this decision to spread the notion that the Obama administration is bent on `crushing' religion, we at MRFF see it as a good sign that, under our new commander in chief, the Department of Defense might just finally be starting to obey its own regulations."11

"The New York Times covered the MRFF's 2009 lawsuit against the military alleging that it forced religious practice on soldiers. The paper also covered MRFF's lawsuit against the Air Force, alleging a commander sent an email to his air personnel that directed them to an inspirational story on a Catholic website. And it covered MRFF's 2007 suit against the Defense Department on behalf of an atheist soldier who felt he was forced to attend prayer meetings. It seems the Military Religious Freedom Foundation has a direct line to the New York Times."

Here are the lies in the above passage:

1. Cupp claims, "MRFF ... campaigned to stop the Pentagon from sending Bibles to soldiers in Iraq ..." Anyone reading that would think that MRFF was trying to keep our troops from getting Bibles to read, right? Well, MRFF has never tried to do anything of the kind. I don't know what incident Cupp is twisting to come up with this claim, so I'll give you the only two possibilities I can think of. MRFF has worked to stop Arabic Bibles from being sent to Iraq for the purpose of our troops proselytizing Iraqi Muslims, which is both forbidden by military regulations and endangers our troops by making the U.S. military look like crusaders. And MRFF has, on one occasion, demanded that the Pentagon cut its ties with one particular organization that sends Bibles to Iraq because of that particular organization's political and other objectionable activities. That's it. We have never done, and will never do, what Cupp's misleading claim says we've done.

2. Cupp claims, "The paper also covered MRFF's lawsuit against the Air Force, alleging a commander sent an email to his air personnel that directed them to an inspirational story on a Catholic website." What Cupp neglects to mention here is that the Catholic website that this commander (who was a her, not a him) directed her subordinate personnel to was a far right political Catholic website that had images depicting President Obama as Hitler and other highly objectionable political content. Of the over sixty complaints that MRFF received from Air Force personnel about this email, most were more shocked and offended by the objectionable political content than the commander's inappropriate use of military email to send a religious message. This is why the New York Times covered the story. It should also be noted that the NCO who first contacted MRFF after unsuccessfully trying to file a formal complaint against this commander was a Catholic himself.

MRFF is in no way anti Christian. In fact, 96% of the service members who contact MRFF for assistance are Christians -- Catholics and mainstream Protestants who are being told by their fundamentalist military superiors that they are not Christian enough or the right kind of Christians.

Cupp also mentions my book, "Liars for Jesus," a book which, incidentally, is unrelated to my work with MRFF. My book, the full title of which is "Liars For Jesus: The Religious Right's Alternate Version of American History Vol. 1," is a history book that debunks many of the lies about American history used by the religious right to further their political agenda. And, like MRFF, my book is in no way anti-Christian. In fact, it was a Christian minister who urged me to write it, and that same Christian minister who wrote the foreword to it.

I've had a bit of an ongoing debate with several friends of mine through the years about whether or not writing based in politics is its own form of art (I think it is, while they disagree). Of course, their collective opinion on writing - as a whole - is that it's merely the act of the writer's brain stringing together a series of words with the sole purpose of persuading the reader to adopt or accept a specific political persuasion (liberal or conservative). Of course, they'll concede that some writers do it better than others - not much of a concession, if you ask me - but, in the end, the writing ends up serving as a `function' far more than does other forms of the written word.

At a quick glance, S.E. Cupp's LOSING OUR RELIGION kinda/sorta supports their view of political writing. Much of the time, she focuses on arguments persuasive to her main thesis: the so-called mainstream media elite have used their positions as cultural communicators to negate the positive effects that religion (or, to a greater extent, faith in God), as an institution, has had not only on the founding of the United States but also on the development of a unique American society. Media pundits have beaten Christians into submission, allowing for any expression meant in reverence to God to be categorized as `extreme' or `fringe' worship. Any mention of a `creator' in schools has been outlawed in favor of promoting Darwinism. Public prayer is unacceptable, unless you're a Muslim. And while Christmas trees remain part of our foreseeable future, wishing your fellow shoppers to enjoy a "Merry Christmas" has been demonized.

So, sure, Cupp's RELIGION is persuasive, and, quite probably, she intentionally crafted her examination of the liberal media's attack on Christianity to appeal to Christians as opposed to non-Christians. That's what writers do: they appeal to their audience. Writing is still a business, and the publisher hopes to sell these wares to folks who would want to read what S.E. has to say ... just as a member of the liberal media would write a book deconstructing these arguments with the sole purpose of appealing to his or her audience.

However, what I found surprising was my learning that S.E. is an atheist, meaning that she accepts no particular faith in God. I have seen her on several news programs (mostly on Fox News where she's proven herself far more than a pretty face), and, if she ever announced as such there, I have to confess that I completely missed it. Despite her personal beliefs (or perhaps `because of them'), she's able to still see the strength and value of living in a society where membership in the majority should be allowed to be viewed as part of the norm and NOT the exception as is portrayed by her mainstream counterparts. Despite her particular view on religion, she can see how her workplace peers are hard-at-work undermining the majority of Americans' faith. Granted, LOSING OUR RELIGION is far more populist than political in my eyes, but I would expect no less from an author committed to exposing a particular bias that almost spits in the face of the mainstream media viewership.

Now, is THAT a work of art? Well, again, maybe some folks - friends of mine, mostly - don't see it that way, but I do. S.E. employs a great degree of common sense, whether she's examining academia, politicians, or even other religions. Her writing is immensely readable, entertaining, and (yeppers) persuasive. It's a quick read that may not make believers out of non-believers, but, then again, she readily admits that even she may not agree with everything her readers do. The difference between her and the next `talking head' is that she allows for her readers to have the faith and conviction to believe what they want to believe ...

Do you think Keith Olbermann do that same? How about Helen Thomas? And what about Barack Obama? All three of those `talking heads' claim to represent you. S.E. doesn't, and I'm more inclined every day of the week to listen to her than I am any of the others.

The author makes assertion after assertion and continually fails to provide evidence for her arguments which makes this book utterly frustrating to understand and get through. I felt like I was reading the work of a teenage girl with a weak grasp on reality or perhaps a paranoid mental patient throwing accusations at passersby. Don't bother buying this one. I give it one star because it'd be a useful book to have if I ever attend a book burning.

Starting at page 1, the drama and hyperbole of this book are so overdone that it can't be taken seriously. For example "the revolution (to destroy Christianity) that began decades ago has gained unprecedented momentum" and very soon "it will be too late." And she actually compares this "revolution" to the revolutions of Castro, Mao, and Stalin.

This book isn't worth wasting time over, but another of many examples of the hyperbole is the supposed attack by the lamestream media on The Chronicles of Narnia. The author spends several pages on this hateful anti-Christian attack on a pro-God movie. Unfortunately for her, if you go to Rotten Tomatos, the best site for movie reviews, which compiles reviews by many reviewers, you'll see that this supposed attack didn't happen. Rotten Tomatos' Top Critics, those critics who write for the ultra-radical Christian-hating lamestream media, give the movie a 76% positive rating--that is 29 reviewers recommended it, 9 didn't. Much of her book, like this example, lacks credibility.

"In an argument (usually a political debate), a concern troll is someone who is on one side of the discussion, but pretends to be a supporter of the other side with 'concerns.' The idea behind this is that your opponents will take your arguments more seriously if they think you're an ally."

Nothing else to see, here, but professional concern trolling. Move along.

I must assume the two dozen reviewers who gave this book only one star is sort of a back handed compliment. Atheists and liberals are upset because S.E.Cupp is simply so good of a writer. She is brilliant, witty and often hilariously funny. She tracks how the mainstream media has become one of Christiantity's bitterest critics. As one pundit noted, the left is not anti-religion (they often love Islam), it is anti-Christianity.
Cupp is an atheist but she is a passionate defender for fairness. After reading this book, I don't see how you could argue against her. She piles details upon details. She even notes the huge difference given C.S. Lewis "Narnia" films as opposed to Philip Pullman's "The Golden Compass." Hint Lewis is a Christian and Pullman an atheist so guess which the MSM went gaga over and which one they bitterly criticized. Actually, regardless of your theological views, the Narnia films were powerful and entertaining. The Golden Compass...not so much. Her analysis is not only pointed but funny at the same time.
This is an exceptionally fine book and leads you to esteem and appreciate - if not Christianity - then at least S.E. Cupp

If you suspect a strong anti-christian media bias... (if you don't you probably don't watch the news) this book is definitely for you. It is unique in that you are reading about christian issues from a self-proclaimed devout atheist. Honestly, that is the hook that got me to make the purchase. After having read the book I don't really think the author's own faith really ends up as much of a factor in her arguments which is part of her point, as an atheist she is non-biased. She is an intelligent young lady and makes some very good points. I agree with another reviewer that she probably pulls too much in from others in the form of quotes... I'd have liked to read more of her original thoughts. As it is... I feel that it was a good read and more than worth the time spent in reading it.

Here are some S. E. Cupp quotes from TV Appearances:

"Today, I don't believe in God. But I'm open to being converted. I am!" [with Hannity on FOX-TV]

Bill Maher: "You're an atheist, so you think people who believe in God are deluded."
S. E. Cupp: "No I don't! I get the appeal of religion. I don't believe in God, but I'm not, like, mad at him." [Real Time with Bill Maher]

"I'm not a militant atheist. I've never really understood the angry atheists." [On C-SPAN]

"I'm envious of the faithful. So I defend the faithful, especially the Christian Right in America, at every opportunity I get." [C-SPAN]

"I haven't closed the door on faith. It just hasn't found me yet... I really aspire to be a person of faith one day." [C-SPAN]

S. E. Cupp: "As an atheist, I could never imagine electing - voting for - an atheist President... Religion keeps a person who is endowed with so much power honest. This is a person [George W. Bush] who's answering to a higher power every night, and not to the state. He doesn't think the state has all the power, and he doesn't think he himself has all the power. That's important to me. I represent 2% of the world. Why would I want someone who thinks that 98% of the world is crazy running the country?"
C-SPAN: "But you don't think that higher power exists."
S. E. Cupp: "I don't. But don't think people are crazy. I understand the allure of religion. I really do. I'm just not going to be dishonest and say that I believe in something that I don't, yet." [C-SPAN]

If S. E. Cupp really IS an atheist, then I think the only explanation for her odd comments is that she is much more focused on the political axis than the philosophical axis. She's mainly concerned with showing that she's in agreement with conservatives.

Sometimes she has to try to manufacture reasons for why she should be offended by the same things they are, and the results are truly bizarre.

Like in her book, she mentions how in his inaugural speech Obama delivered a "slight to religious America" for being the first President in US history to mention atheists and call America a nation of, among other things, nonbelievers. She writes: "He would, over the course of his first year, go on to regularly put nonbelievers on the same plane of believers. 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... The president may as well mention 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."

Is she familiar with what FOX-pundits have said about atheists over the years?

I think S. E. Cupp has potential as a writer, but I'm not going to give a higher rating based on potential. This book is easy to read, and has a few flashes of humor -- but the main thesis is just too vague to effectively defend.

I'd much rather read a book about what it is like to be an atheist working for FOX. To do well there, does she have to constantly act like she's "about to get religion"?