Godless: The Church of Liberalism

(Author)

Editorial Reviews

Product Description

"If a martian landed in America and set out to determine the nation's official state religion, he would have to conclude it is liberalism, while Christianity and Judaism are prohibited by law.

Many Americans are outraged by liberal hostility to traditional religion. But as Ann Coulter reveals in this, her most explosive book yet, to focus solely on the Left's attacks on our Judeo-Christian tradition is to miss a larger point: liberalism is a religion—a godless one.

And it is now entrenched as the state religion of this county.

Though liberalism rejects the idea of God and reviles people of faith, it bears all the attributes of a religion. In Godless, Coulter throws open the doors of the Church of Liberalism, showing us its sacraments (abortion), its holy writ (Roe v. Wade), its martyrs (from Soviet spy Alger Hiss to cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal), its clergy (public school teachers), its churches (government schools, where prayer is prohibited but condoms are free), its doctrine of infallibility (as manifest in the "absolute moral authority" of spokesmen from Cindy Sheehan to Max Cleland), and its cosmology (in which mankind is an inconsequential accident).

Then, of course, there's the liberal creation myth: Charles Darwin's theory of evolution.

For liberals, evolution is the touchstone that separates the enlightened from the benighted. But Coulter neatly reverses the pretense that liberals are rationalists guided by the ideals of free inquiry and the scientific method. She exposes the essential truth about Darwinian evolution that liberals refuse to confront: it is bogus science.

Writing with a keen appreciation for genuine science, Coulter reveals that the so-called gaps in the theory of evolution are all there is—Darwinism is nothing but a gap. After 150 years of dedicated searching into the fossil record, evolution's proponents have failed utterly to substantiate its claims. And a long line of supposed evidence, from the infamous Piltdown Man to the "evolving" peppered moths of England, has been exposed as hoaxes. Still, liberals treat those who question evolution as religious heretics and prohibit students from hearing about real science when it contradicts Darwinism. And these are the people who say they want to keep faith out of the classroom?

Liberals' absolute devotion to Darwinism, Coulter shows, has nothing to do with evolution's scientific validity and everything to do with its refusal to admit the possibility of God as a guiding force. They will brook no challenges to the official religion.

Fearlessly confronting the high priests of the Church of Liberalism and ringing with Coulter's razor-sharp wit, Godless is the most important and riveting book yet from one of today's most lively and impassioned conservative voices.


"Liberals love to boast that they are not 'religious,' which is what one would expect to hear from the state-sanctioned religion. Of course liberalism is a religion. It has its own cosmology, its own miracles, its own beliefs in the supernatural, its own churches, its own high priests, its own saints, its own total worldview, and its own explanation of the existence of the universe. In other words, liberalism contains all the attributes of what is generally known as 'religion.'" —From Godless

About the Author

Ann Coulter is the author of five New York Times bestsellers, including How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must), Treason, Slander, and High Crimes and Misdemeanors.


From the Trade Paperback edition. --This text refers to an alternate Hardcover edition.

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Hardcover: 320 pages
• Publisher: Crown Forum; 4th Printing edition (June 6, 2006)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 1400054206
• ISBN-13: 978-1400054206
• Product Dimensions: 9.2 x 6.2 x 1.2 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1.2 pounds (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 3.5 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (957 customer reviews)
• Amazon.com Sales Rank: #230,301 in Books (See Bestsellers in Books)

  Popular in this category: (What's this?)

  #15 in

  Books > Nonfiction > Social Sciences > Political Science > Psychology

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

3,472 of 4,193 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Republican Jesus wins out, June 7, 2006

By	Gen. JC Christian, patriot (Tremonton, UT United States) - See all my reviews

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?

90 of 117 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, July 19, 2006

By	Junis L. Baldon (Columbus, OH, by way of Upper Manhattan, NY) - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)

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.

24 of 30 people found the following review helpful:

2.0 out of 5 stars Debunking Psuedo-Science, October 12, 2006

By	Lampwick of Beeswax "lampwick_of_beeswax" (the poop deck of the SS Flern) - See all my reviews

Ann's Coulter's use of a few isolated incidents, the most notable of which is Piltdown Man (never fully accepted by the biologists and paleontologists anyway) does not a body of evidence make. Most of her sources are over a hundred years old, and use of the word "Theory" in the scientific sense differs from its popular use.

If Ann and and her fellow travellers are prepared to believe her conclusions, then they must also must reject such well-established theories as plate tectonics (the ultimate resting place of many older fossils) as well as the fact that many soft-celled organisms are chemically incapable of leaving a fossil footprint. The ultimate canard is that Ann's own "ideas", for they do not rise to the level of a hypothosis, let alone a theory, are ultimately proven to be a canard. If Homo Sapiens Sapiens did indeed emerge as such spontaeneously, why do specimens not exist in older strata? Do they reject radiometric dating and isotopic decay as a means of dating? Is spectographic imaging, commonly used by our military, also an errant school of science? The primary argument of ID followers is that each species covering the age of progression has not been identified, thereby debunking the entire theory. This argument wouldn't wash with a student with no more scientific background than Bio 102. But I believe Michael Benton, Head of the Dept of Earth Sciences at the University of Bristol put it best when writing:

"It would be marvellous if the fossil record were complete, and all species that ever existed were laid out to be seen and recorded. There would then never be an doubt about what happened, and when, and even why. However, most organisms that ever lived did not become fossils and this thought certainly gives palaeontologists sleepless nights.

Fortunately, there is an important scaling issue that saves the palaeontologist's sleep: the bigger the taxonomic target target, the more chance you have of finding it. As you climb the taxanomic hierarchy, the chances of preservation increase. So, the chance of finding any any particular fossil species might be 1%. But if there are ten species in a genus, then the chance of finding that genus increases to 10%. If there are 10 genera in a family, the next trditional rank in the taxamonic hierarchy, then the chance of finding at least 1 representative of that family is 100%. So, palaeontologists make their initial global studies at the level of the family. Once that survey is complete, they may attempt to drop to the genus level, or even the species level, perhaps for local studies."

The oldest know rocks on earth are 3.5 billion years old, and there's evidence that life existed back then. The burrowed remains of tube worms are found in those rocks.