Misplaced Pages

Godless: The Church of Liberalism: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 01:40, 11 August 2006 editEd Poor (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers59,195 edits How can there be "undue weight" given to Coulter's views in an article ABOUT her book? And pls specify "factual inaccuracies" on the discussion page← Previous edit Latest revision as of 18:55, 30 September 2024 edit undoGreenC bot (talk | contribs)Bots2,547,810 edits Move 1 url. Wayback Medic 2.5 per WP:URLREQ#foxnews.com/story 
(514 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|2006 book by Ann Coulter}}
]
{{Infobox book | <!-- See Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Books -->
'''''Godless''''' is a nonfiction book by ] author ]. The book argues that ] is the equivalent of a ], a state enforced form of faith<ref>"Ann Coulter’s new book Godless: The Church of Liberalism is about how Liberalism has literally become a state enforced form of faith." </ref> which has "its own ], its own explanation for why we are here, its own gods, its own clergy. The basic tenet of liberalism is that nature is god and men are monkeys."
| name = Godless: The Church of Liberalism
| image = Godless Cover.JPG
| caption = Cover
| author = ]
| country = United States
| language = English
| subject = ]
| publisher = Crown Forum
| pub_date = June 7, 2006
| media_type = Print
| pages =
| isbn = 1-4000-5420-6
| dewey = 320.51/30973 22
| congress = JC574.2.U6 C667 2006b
| oclc = 69594152
| preceded_by =
| followed_by =
}}


'''''Godless: The Church of Liberalism''''' is a book by best-selling author and American ]<ref>{{cite news |last1=Rosenberg |first1=Eli |title=Ann Coulter once called Trump a 'god.' Now she says he's 'gutless' if he can't build the wall. |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/12/21/ann-coulter-once-called-trump-god-now-she-says-hes-gutless-if-he-cant-build-wall/ |newspaper=Washington Post |access-date=16 February 2019 |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last1=Sollenberger |first1=Roger |title=Ann Coulter, of All People, Just Handed Democrats Their Strategy for 2020 |url=https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2018/12/ann-coulter-of-all-people-just-handed-democrats-th.html |website=pastemagazine.com |date=21 December 2018 |access-date=16 February 2019 |language=en |archive-date=17 February 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190217030256/https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2018/12/ann-coulter-of-all-people-just-handed-democrats-th.html |url-status=dead }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Ann Coulter says Jews, like rest of Democratic base, 'hate white men' |url=https://www.timesofisrael.com/ann-coulter-says-jews-like-rest-of-democratic-base-hate-white-men/ |website=www.timesofisrael.com |publisher=] |access-date=16 February 2019}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last1=Conroy |first1=J. Oliver |title=Ann Coulter believes the left has 'lost its mind'. Should we listen? |url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/oct/17/ann-coulter-believes-the-left-has-lost-its-mind-should-we-listen |website=The Guardian |access-date=16 February 2019 |date=17 October 2018}}</ref> columnist ], published in 2006. The book is an argument against ], which Coulter claims is ], ], comparing it with ], purported to have "its own ], its own explanation for why we are here, its own gods, and its own clergy." Coulter argues that "the basic tenet of liberalism is that nature is god and men are monkeys."<ref>{{cite web |title=Ann Coulter's "Godless" Makes the Liberals' Heads Spin With Obfuscation! |date=12 June 2006 |url=http://www.independentconservative.com/2006/06/12/coulters_godless/ |access-date=January 13, 2011}}</ref>
Her fifth major work, it was published on ], ] (06/06/06), a date meant to coincide with the ] "666" in ].


The book drew criticism for its statements on the ], alleged ] content, the promotion of pseudoscientific ], its incoherence, and its factual inaccuracy.
==Central thesis==
Coulter argues that liberalism rejects the idea of ] and reviles people of faith, yet bears all the attributes of a religion itself. Coulter argues that the tenets of the liberal "church" are:
*] (])
*]s (])<ref>In Ann Coulter's latest book, she asserts that "liberalism contains all the attributes of what is generally known as 'religion,'" including a creation mythology (evolution), priests (public school teachers) and a holy sacrament (abortion). </ref>
*] (])
*]s (from ] to ])
*] (public school teachers)
*] (government schools, where ] is prohibited but ]s are free)
*] (as manifest in the "absolute moral authority" of spokesmen from ] to ])
*] (], in which mankind is an inconsequential accident)


==Jersey Girls controversy== == The 9/11 "Jersey Girls" ==
Throughout the book, Coulter criticizes the four 9/11 widows, known as the "]", who helped push for the ] and have been critical of US security policies, writing:


In the book, Coulter criticized the ], four 9/11 widows who helped push for the ] and have been critical of US security policies. Coulter wrote "These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzis. I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much." She also wrote, "And by the way, how do we know their husbands weren't planning to divorce these ]? Now that their shelf life is dwindling, they'd better hurry up and appear in ].... " On the June 6, 2006 broadcast of ]'s '']'', Coulter had a contentious interview with host ] in which she defended her statements in ''Godless'' and accused Lauer of "getting testy" with her. Coulter alleged that the 9/11 widows were part of the "Left's doctrine of infallibility" and that they were using their grief "in order to make a political point while preventing anyone from responding." <blockquote>These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzis. These self-obsessed women seemed genuinely unaware that 9/11 was an attack on our nation and acted as if the terrorist attacks happened only to them. ... I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much ... the Democrat ratpack gals endorsed ] for president ... cutting campaign commercials ... how do we know their husbands weren't planning to divorce these ]? Now that their shelf life is dwindling, they'd better hurry up and appear in '']''.<ref name="godless">{{cite book |last=Coulter |first=Ann |title=Godless: The Church of Liberalism |url=https://archive.org/details/godlesschurchofl00coul |url-access=registration |publisher=Crown Forum |location=New York City |date=June 6, 2006 |isbn=9781400054206 }}</ref></blockquote>


These statements received national attention after an interview on '']'', and were widely criticized.<ref>{{cite web |author=Christine Grimaldi |title=Writer's claims disturb families of 9/11 victims |url=http://nbs.gmnews.com/news/2006/0615/Front_Page/036.html |publisher=North Brunswick Sentinel |date=July 16, 2006 |access-date=November 10, 2006 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061104012221/http://nbs.gmnews.com/news/2006/0615/Front_Page/036.html |archive-date=November 4, 2006 }}</ref><ref name="attack911">{{cite web |url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ann-coulter-attacks-9-11-widows/ |title=Ann Coulter attacks 9/11 widows |work=] |date=June 7, 2006 |access-date=July 10, 2006}}</ref><ref name="lathemalgar">Lathem, Niles; Algar, Selim. " {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060703050209/http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/67195.htm |date=July 3, 2006 }}." ''].'' June 8, 2006. Retrieved on July 10, 2006.</ref><ref>Elliot, Philip. "." ''].'' June 9, 2006. Retrieved on July 10, 2006. {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090221170927/https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=2058973 |date=February 21, 2009 }}</ref> Coulter refused to apologize, and responded, "I feel sorry for all the widows of 9/11 ... I do not believe that sanctifies their political message ... They have attacked Bush, they have attacked ], they're cutting campaign commercials for Kerry. But we can't respond because their husbands died ... I think it's one of the ugliest things 'the left' has done ... this idea that you need some sort of personal authenticity in order to make a political point ..."<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.foxnews.com/story/ann-coulter-fires-back-at-critics |title=Ann Coulter Fires Back at Critics |access-date = December 4, 2007 |date=June 8, 2006 |publisher = ]}}</ref>
On June 7, ] ] (D-NY) called Coulter's charge a "vicious, mean-spirited attack." Coulter later responded to Senator Clinton on ]'s radio show by saying, "Before criticizing others for being 'mean' to women, perhaps Hillary should talk to her husband who was accused of rape by ] and was groping ] at the very moment Willey's husband was committing suicide."
On June 8, ] ] (D-IL) called Coulter a "hatemonger" on the floor of the ] and urged his Republican colleagues to denounce her as well. Later, ], a member of the ] and a former Democratic U.S. Representative, called Coulter's statements "reprehensible and undignified" and urged Americans not to buy her book.


Also on June 8, ] Assemblywomen ] and ] issued a joint press release, calling on "... New Jersey retailers to ban the sale of her book throughout the state."<ref name="Taranto">{{cite news |url=http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110008497 |title=The Coulter Kerfuffle |last=Taranto |first=James |date=June 9, 2006 |newspaper=The Wall Street Journal |access-date=June 28, 2009}}</ref>
Also on June 8, Coulter appeared at a book signing in ], home of many who died in 9/11, where she was handed a letter stating "Your latest comments deriding the widows of 9/11 are a disgrace to thousands who perished on that day," and that her claim that the women had profited from their husbands' death is a "nauseating misrepresentation of their struggle to keep the memory of what happened that day alive." by Huntington town board member Mark Cuthbertson, who told her "I'm here on behalf of many of my constituents. We are disgusted with your comments." Coulter tore up the letter.


==Jews==
== Christianity as it appears in the book ==
] noted that Coulter implied ]s and ] are one and the same:<ref name=chris/>
The book begins with a quotation from Christian ]: ''"They exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creation rather than the creator.... Therefore, God gave them up to passions of dishonor, for their females exchanged the natural use for that which is contrary to nature. — Romans 1:25-26"''


<blockquote>If liberals are on Red Alert with one born-again Christian in the cabinet of ], imagine how they would react if there were five. Between 25 and 45 percent of the population calls itself "born-again" or "evangelical" Christian. Jews make up less than 2 per cent of the nation's population, and yet Clinton]] had five in his cabinet. He appointed two to the Supreme Court. Now guess which administration is called a neoconservative conspiracy?</blockquote>
Coulter also says in a footnote, "Throughout this book, I often refer to ]s and Christianity because I am a Christian and I have a fairly good idea of what they believe, but the term is intended to include anyone who subscribes to the ] of the God of ], including ]s and others."

She also criticizes the ] in her book, saying, "] left the Episcopal Church -- which is barely even a church -- because his church, in ], would not cede land for a bike path."{{fact}}


== Science and intelligent design == == Science and intelligent design ==
Coulter's reliance on intelligent design and creationist sources for science, has prompted some critics of the ] to analyze her claims. Biologist ], countering Coulter's claim that there is no evidence for the theory of evolution, points to the ] that contains hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, of articles about various aspects of evolution. He also argues that Coulter has it backwards: The issue is not whether there is evidence that supports evolution theory, but whether there is evidence that is explained by evolution theory, since ] are explanations for data.<ref> {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060622031856/http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/06/ann_coulter_no_evidence_for_ev.php |date=2006-06-22 }} PZ Myers. Pharyngula, scienceblogs.com June 18, 2006</ref> In response to Coulter's citing of ]' arguments concerning ], Ian Musgrave argues that Coulter misrepresents the significance of the peppered moth experiments, makes a number of factual errors, and a "wildly ignorant misrepresentation of evolution."<ref> {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130121005418/http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/06/anne_coulter_cl_1.html |date=2013-01-21 }} Ian Musgrave. ''The Panda's Thumb'', June 18, 2006</ref> James Downard criticized Coulter's favoring of ]s over ]s, saying "she compulsively reads inaccurate antievolutionary sources and accepts them on account of their reinforcement of what she wants to be true."<ref> James Downard. TalkReason, June 2006.</ref>


] responded to Coulter's ] arguments against evolution by noting 11 types of distortions in her writing and going into detail explaining why her claims are false, pseudoscientific and contrary to science.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://mediamatters.org/items/200607070010|title=Ann Coulter's "Flatulent Raccoon Theory"|website=]|date=July 7, 2006|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090505170854/http://mediamatters.org/research/200607070010|archive-date=May 5, 2009|url-status=dead}}</ref> A satirical account of Coulter's take on evolution was written by probabilist Peter Olofsson, whose tongue-in-cheek argument was that Coulter had in fact written a veiled criticism of the intelligent design movement, much like ] did to the postmodern movement in his famous hoax.<ref> Peter Olofsson, ''Skeptical Inquirer'', 2007</ref>
Coulter devotes approximately one-third of the book to ] attacks on ] and ], which, in keeping with the ], Coulter terms "]." Admittedly having no background on the science of the subject herself, Coulter says she turned to tutors in writing this section of the book: "I couldn't have written about evolution without the generous tutoring of ], ], and ]..." Behe, Dembski and Berlinski are all fellows of the ], the hub of the ] movement, which Coulter endorses in the book.

Chapter 8, ''The Creation Myth: On the Sixth Day, God Created Fruit Flies,'' advances the book's thesis that liberalism is a religion, this time by attempting to show what she argues is its ]. The chapter begins:<blockquote>"Liberals' creation myth is Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, which is about one notch above ] in scientific rigor. It's a make-believe story, based on a theory that is a ], with no proof in the scientist's laboratory or the fossil record—and that's after 150 years of very determined looking. We wouldn't still be talking about it but for the fact that liberals think evolution disproves God."</blockquote>

Later in the chapter, she presents a fanciful concept - the "Giant Raccoon's Flatulence Theory" - to illustrate what she sees as fallacious arguments of those who espouse the theory of ]. The "theory" states:<blockquote>''Imagine'' a giant raccoon passed gas and ''perhaps'' the resulting gas ''might'' have created the vast variety of life we see on Earth. ''And if you don't accept the giant raccoon flatulence theory for the origin of life, you must be a fundamentalist Christian nut who believes the Earth is flat''.</blockquote>

The ''imagine'', ''perhaps'' and ''might'' (italicized by Coulter in the book) refer to what she believes is the speculative, mythical, "made-up-story" nature of the ] theory that species evolved through mutation and non-random selection.

Chapter 9, entitled ''Proof for How the Walkman Evolved into the iPOD by Random Mutation'' begins: <blockquote>"Darwiniacs do not have a single observable example of one species evolving into another by the Darwinian mechanism of variation and selection. All they have is a story. It is a story that inspires fanatical devotion from the cult simply because their story excludes a creator. They have seized upon something that looks like progress from primitive life forms to more complex life forms and invented a story to explain how the various categories of animals originated. But animal sequences do not prove that the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection caused the similarities. It is just as likely that the similarities are proof of intelligent design, creationism, or the Giant Raccoon's Flatulence theory. The animal-sequence drawings allegedly demonstrating evolution by showing, for example, a little runt horse gradually becoming a grand stallion, are just that: drawings."</blockquote>

To back her opinion, Coulter refers to examples used in long-standing creationist arguments against evolution, such as ], the ], ], ], ], and the ], presenting them as flawed, discredited, or made-up evidence and stating arguments to support her case. While portraying evolution theory as a "religion," Coulter portrays intelligent design as legitimate science:<blockquote>"Nor are intelligent design scientists looking at things they can't explain: Quite the opposite. They are looking at things they ''can'' explain but which Darwin didn't even know about, like the internal mechanism of the cell, and saying, That wasn't created by natural selection—that required high-tech engineering. By contrast, the evolution cult members look at things they can't explain and say, We can't explain it, but the one thing we do know is that there is no intelligence in the universe. It must have been random chance, or it's not "science.""</blockquote>

The scientific community discounts the allegations, such as Coulter's, that the ] lacks scientific ], is based on a tautology, is without experimental or physical proof or that it "disproves God." The claim that modern evolutionary theory lacks rigor is emphatically rejected by the ] which says that evolution is one of the most thoroughly tested and confirmed theories in science.<ref name=NAS>''Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences'', Second Edition. National Academy of Sciences. 1999. Last accessed: 6 July, 2006 </ref> Coulter's assertion that evolution is based on a "tautology" is also widely considered to be baseless,<ref>''Claim CA500: Natural selection, or "survival of the fittest," is tautologous'' Index to Creationist Claims, edited by Mark Isaak. The TalkOrigins Archive. 2005.</ref> as are her claims that evolution is without proof<ref name=NAS/><ref>''Claim CA202: Evolution has not been, and cannot be, proved.'' Index to Creationist Claims, edited by Mark Isaak. The TalkOrigins Archive. 2005.</ref><ref>''29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent.'' Theobald, Douglas L. The Talk.Origins Archive. Vers. 2.83. 2004. Last accessed: 6 July, 2006 </ref> and is atheistic.<ref>''Claim CA602: Evolution is atheistic. '' Index to Creationist Claims, edited by Mark Isaak. The TalkOrigins Archive. 2005.</ref> The ]<ref>See: 1) ] 2) ]. The Discovery Institute's has been signed by about 500 scientists. The AAAS, the largest association of scientists in the U.S., has 120,000 members, and . More than 70,000 Australian scientists and educators . on the status intelligent design and other forms of creationism. </ref> also views intelligent design not as a valid ] but as ]<ref>], a professional association of 55,000 science teachers and administrators in a 2005 press release: "We stand with the nation's leading scientific organizations and scientists, including Dr. John Marburger, the president's top science advisor, in stating that </ref> or ]. <ref>"Biologists aren’t alarmed by intelligent design’s arrival in Dover and elsewhere because they have all sworn allegiance to atheistic materialism; they’re alarmed because intelligent design is junk science." H. Allen Orr. Annals of Science. New Yorker May 2005. Also, ] Tower of Babel: The Evidence Against the New Creationism. </ref> The National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of ] intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by ], do not generate any predictions and propose no new ] of their own.<ref name=NAS/>

Coulter's reliance on controversial sources for science, intelligent design proponents and creationist sources, has prompted critics of the ] to analyze her claims. PZ Myers, against Coulter's claim that there is no evidence for evolution, points to the ] that contains hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, of articles about various aspects of evolution. He also argues Coulter has it backwards: The issue is not whether there is evidence that supports evolution, but whether there is evidence that is explained by evolution, since ] are explanations for data.<ref> PZ Myers. Pharyngula, scienceblogs.com June 18, 2006</ref> In response to Coulter's citing of ]' arguments concerning ], Ian Musgrave argues that Coulter misrepresents the significance of the peppered moth experiments, makes a number of factual errors, and a "wildly ignorant misrepresentation of evolution."<ref> Ian Musgrave. The Panda's Thumb, June 18, 2006</ref> James Downard criticized Coulter's favoring of ] over ], saying "she compulsively reads inaccurate antievolutionary sources and accepts them on account of their reinforcement of what she wants to be true."<ref> James Downard. TalkReason, June 2006.</ref>

] responded to Coulter's "]" arguments against evolution by noting 11 types of "distortions" in her writing and going into detail explaining why her claims are false and contrary to science.<ref> ] Jul 7, 2006</ref>

One of Coulter's primary points is that there is no mention of intelligent design in the public school system. Coulter believes students should have the opportunity to debate scientific design vs intelligent design in a classroom setting, rejecting ] that intelligent design is not legitimate science and the ruling in ] that that intelligent design is not science but is essentially religious in nature.<ref>], ], Case No. 04cv2688. December 20, 2005 </ref> Coulter argues that any challenges to the theory of evolution are immediately disqualified as being based on religious beliefs. Coulter claims this is evidence a of a liberal-left conspiracy to create a generations of atheists taught through the public school system.


== Reception ==
== Accusations of Plagiarism, Distortions and Falsehoods ==
], in a critical review of ''Godless'' for '']'', pointed to the book's incoherent prose and factual inaccuracy.<ref name=chris>{{cite web|last1=Hitchens|first1=Christopher|title=Non-Fiction Review - Godless|url=http://www.theliberal.co.uk/hitchens.htm|website=theliberal.co.uk|access-date=4 October 2017}}</ref>


Coulter's book has been accused of multiple counts of ]. John Barrie, creator of a popular digital plagiarism-detection software product, apparently found three instances of plagiarism in the book (as well as several instances in her syndicated opinion column).<ref> Philip Recchia. The New York Post, July 2, 2006</ref> Her book also evidently copied text from the Illinois Right to Life website.<ref> Ron Brynaert, June 14, 2006</ref> On July 7, 2006 the TPM Muckracker provided a "complete" list of examples of plagiarism discovered so far.<ref> Justin Rood, July 7, 2006</ref> After an investigation, the president of ], which distributes Coulter's newspaper column, rejected the allegations. Coulter's book publisher characterized the charges as being "as trivial and meritless as they are irresponsible." John Barrie, creator of ]'s ]-detection software, found in the book three instances of what he claims to be plagiarism.<ref> {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060705122230/http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/copycatty_coulter_pilfers_prose__pro_nationalnews_philip_recchia.htm |date=July 5, 2006 }} Philip Recchia. ''The New York Post'', July 2, 2006</ref> The Rawstory website claims that she used text taken from the Illinois Right to Life website, making only slight changes for the book.<ref> {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060805185109/http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/In_new_book_Coulter_cribs_stem_0614.html |date=2006-08-05 }} Ron Brynaert, June 14, 2006</ref> The TPM Muckracker website provided a "complete" list of examples of alleged plagiarism discovered so far in all of Coulter's works.<ref> {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060709233603/http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/001070.php |date=2006-07-09 }} Justin Rood, July 7, 2006</ref> Coulter's publisher ] has since characterized the charges as being "as trivial and meritless as they are irresponsible."<ref>" {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060719085707/http://www.sunherald.com/mld/sunherald/entertainment/15008149.htm |date=July 19, 2006 }}." ''].'' July 10, 2006. Retrieved on July 11, 2006.</ref>
<ref>"." ''].'' ], ]. Retrieved on ], ].</ref>


== See also ==
==Alleged Distortions and Falsehoods==
* ]
On August 7, 2006 ] issued a report claiming Coulter, misrepresented and distorted the statements of her sources, omitted information in those sources that refuted the claims in her book, misrepresented news coverage to allege bias, relied upon outdated and unreliable sources, and invented "facts."<ref> ] August 7, 2006 </ref> According to Media Matters, this analysis was written due to a failure of ] to review Coulter's work. Several examples of distortions and falsehoods were offered in the report. On August 9, 2006 ] appeared on ] to discuss the falsehoods. + relied upon outdated and unreliable sources, and invented "facts."<ref> ] August 7, 2006 </ref> According to Media Matters, this analysis was written due to a failure of ] to review Coulter's work. Several examples of distortions and falsehoods were offered in the report. On August 9, 2006 ] appeared on ] to discuss the falsehoods.


==References== == References ==
{{reflist|colwidth=30em}}
<references/>


{{Ann Coulter}}
==External links==
* - Transcript and video of ''The Today Show'' interview with Matt Lauer (June 6, 2006).
*
*
*
*
*
*
* , a site on evolutionary science reviews Coulter's sources and writing
* Media Matters charges that her book Godless, is full of misrepresentations on evolution


{{DEFAULTSORT:Godless: The Church Of Liberalism}}
]
]
]
] ]
]
]
]
]
]
]

Latest revision as of 18:55, 30 September 2024

2006 book by Ann Coulter
Godless: The Church of Liberalism
Cover
AuthorAnn Coulter
LanguageEnglish
SubjectLiberalism in the United States
PublisherCrown Forum
Publication dateJune 7, 2006
Publication placeUnited States
Media typePrint
ISBN1-4000-5420-6
OCLC69594152
Dewey Decimal320.51/30973 22
LC ClassJC574.2.U6 C667 2006b

Godless: The Church of Liberalism is a book by best-selling author and American far-right columnist Ann Coulter, published in 2006. The book is an argument against American liberalism, which Coulter claims is anti-scientific, faith-based, comparing it with primitive religion, purported to have "its own cosmology, its own explanation for why we are here, its own gods, and its own clergy." Coulter argues that "the basic tenet of liberalism is that nature is god and men are monkeys."

The book drew criticism for its statements on the Jersey Girls, alleged plagiarized content, the promotion of pseudoscientific intelligent design, its incoherence, and its factual inaccuracy.

The 9/11 "Jersey Girls"

Throughout the book, Coulter criticizes the four 9/11 widows, known as the "Jersey Girls", who helped push for the 9/11 Commission and have been critical of US security policies, writing:

These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzis. These self-obsessed women seemed genuinely unaware that 9/11 was an attack on our nation and acted as if the terrorist attacks happened only to them. ... I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much ... the Democrat ratpack gals endorsed John Kerry for president ... cutting campaign commercials ... how do we know their husbands weren't planning to divorce these harpies? Now that their shelf life is dwindling, they'd better hurry up and appear in Playboy.

These statements received national attention after an interview on The Today Show, and were widely criticized. Coulter refused to apologize, and responded, "I feel sorry for all the widows of 9/11 ... I do not believe that sanctifies their political message ... They have attacked Bush, they have attacked Condoleezza Rice, they're cutting campaign commercials for Kerry. But we can't respond because their husbands died ... I think it's one of the ugliest things 'the left' has done ... this idea that you need some sort of personal authenticity in order to make a political point ..."

Also on June 8, New Jersey Assemblywomen Joan M. Quigley and Linda Stender issued a joint press release, calling on "... New Jersey retailers to ban the sale of her book throughout the state."

Jews

Christopher Hitchens noted that Coulter implied neoconservatives and Jews are one and the same:

If liberals are on Red Alert with one born-again Christian in the cabinet of a Christian president, imagine how they would react if there were five. Between 25 and 45 percent of the population calls itself "born-again" or "evangelical" Christian. Jews make up less than 2 per cent of the nation's population, and yet Clinton had five in his cabinet. He appointed two to the Supreme Court. Now guess which administration is called a neoconservative conspiracy?

Science and intelligent design

Coulter's reliance on intelligent design and creationist sources for science, has prompted some critics of the intelligent design movement to analyze her claims. Biologist P. Z. Myers, countering Coulter's claim that there is no evidence for the theory of evolution, points to the scientific literature that contains hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, of articles about various aspects of evolution. He also argues that Coulter has it backwards: The issue is not whether there is evidence that supports evolution theory, but whether there is evidence that is explained by evolution theory, since scientific theories are explanations for data. In response to Coulter's citing of Jonathan Wells' arguments concerning peppered moth evolution, Ian Musgrave argues that Coulter misrepresents the significance of the peppered moth experiments, makes a number of factual errors, and a "wildly ignorant misrepresentation of evolution." James Downard criticized Coulter's favoring of secondary sources over primary sources, saying "she compulsively reads inaccurate antievolutionary sources and accepts them on account of their reinforcement of what she wants to be true."

Media Matters for America responded to Coulter's strawman arguments against evolution by noting 11 types of distortions in her writing and going into detail explaining why her claims are false, pseudoscientific and contrary to science. A satirical account of Coulter's take on evolution was written by probabilist Peter Olofsson, whose tongue-in-cheek argument was that Coulter had in fact written a veiled criticism of the intelligent design movement, much like Alan Sokal did to the postmodern movement in his famous hoax.

Reception

Christopher Hitchens, in a critical review of Godless for The Liberal, pointed to the book's incoherent prose and factual inaccuracy.

John Barrie, creator of iParadigms, LLC's plagiarism-detection software, found in the book three instances of what he claims to be plagiarism. The Rawstory website claims that she used text taken from the Illinois Right to Life website, making only slight changes for the book. The TPM Muckracker website provided a "complete" list of examples of alleged plagiarism discovered so far in all of Coulter's works. Coulter's publisher Crown Publishing Group has since characterized the charges as being "as trivial and meritless as they are irresponsible."

See also

References

  1. Rosenberg, Eli. "Ann Coulter once called Trump a 'god.' Now she says he's 'gutless' if he can't build the wall". Washington Post. Retrieved 16 February 2019.
  2. Sollenberger, Roger (21 December 2018). "Ann Coulter, of All People, Just Handed Democrats Their Strategy for 2020". pastemagazine.com. Archived from the original on 17 February 2019. Retrieved 16 February 2019.
  3. "Ann Coulter says Jews, like rest of Democratic base, 'hate white men'". www.timesofisrael.com. The Times of Israel. Retrieved 16 February 2019.
  4. Conroy, J. Oliver (17 October 2018). "Ann Coulter believes the left has 'lost its mind'. Should we listen?". The Guardian. Retrieved 16 February 2019.
  5. "Ann Coulter's "Godless" Makes the Liberals' Heads Spin With Obfuscation!". 12 June 2006. Retrieved January 13, 2011.
  6. Coulter, Ann (June 6, 2006). Godless: The Church of Liberalism. New York City: Crown Forum. ISBN 9781400054206.
  7. Christine Grimaldi (July 16, 2006). "Writer's claims disturb families of 9/11 victims". North Brunswick Sentinel. Archived from the original on November 4, 2006. Retrieved November 10, 2006.
  8. "Ann Coulter attacks 9/11 widows". CBS News. June 7, 2006. Retrieved July 10, 2006.
  9. Lathem, Niles; Algar, Selim. "Give-'em-hill Fury vs. Coulter Archived July 3, 2006, at the Wayback Machine." New York Post. June 8, 2006. Retrieved on July 10, 2006.
  10. Elliot, Philip. "9/11 Commissioner criticizes Coulter." ABC News. June 9, 2006. Retrieved on July 10, 2006. Archived February 21, 2009, at the Wayback Machine
  11. "Ann Coulter Fires Back at Critics". Fox News. June 8, 2006. Retrieved December 4, 2007.
  12. Taranto, James (June 9, 2006). "The Coulter Kerfuffle". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved June 28, 2009.
  13. ^ Hitchens, Christopher. "Non-Fiction Review - Godless". theliberal.co.uk. Retrieved 4 October 2017.
  14. Ann Coulter: No evidence for evolution? Archived 2006-06-22 at the Wayback Machine PZ Myers. Pharyngula, scienceblogs.com June 18, 2006
  15. Ann Coulter: Clueless Archived 2013-01-21 at the Wayback Machine Ian Musgrave. The Panda's Thumb, June 18, 2006
  16. Secondary Addiction: Ann Coulter on Evolution Part I Part II Part III James Downard. TalkReason, June 2006.
  17. "Ann Coulter's "Flatulent Raccoon Theory"". Media Matters for America. July 7, 2006. Archived from the original on May 5, 2009.
  18. The Coulter Hoax: How Ann Coulter Exposed the Intelligent Design Movement. Peter Olofsson, Skeptical Inquirer, 2007
  19. Copycatty Coulter Pilfers Prose: Pro Archived July 5, 2006, at the Wayback Machine Philip Recchia. The New York Post, July 2, 2006
  20. In new book, Coulter 'cribs' stem cell list from right-to-life group Archived 2006-08-05 at the Wayback Machine Ron Brynaert, June 14, 2006
  21. List of Coulter Plagiarism Allegations Archived 2006-07-09 at the Wayback Machine Justin Rood, July 7, 2006
  22. "Syndicator denies Coulter lifted material Archived July 19, 2006, at the Wayback Machine." Sun Herald. July 10, 2006. Retrieved on July 11, 2006.
Works by Ann Coulter
Categories: