One of the best dissections of libral ideology ever. Insighful, blunt, and, despite what the left would like you to believe, right on the money.

Ann Coulter, Godless: The Church of Liberalism (Crown, 2006)

I would like to be able to review Ann Coulter's newest tome, Godless: The Church of Liberalism, fairly. However, I find myself unable to do so because Coulter's entire premise is a ludicrous, but increasingly common, fallacy: the equation of conservatism with orthodox religion (specifically, in this case, Christianity, though I've often heard Joe Lieberman, an orthodox Jew, described as conservative as well). I'm not sure how this odd distortion of reality came about, but let me set the record straight here: anyone whose opinions on any given topic come from a solely religious viewpoint is not a conservative. They are, without doubt, a wholly different stripe of liberal than, say, the Warren Court that Coulter so despises, but trust me-- conservatives don't want them either. Where do you think the term “neocon” came from? That's right-- us. The conservatives.

To use an example that's obviously near and dear to Ann's heart, given how much she brings it up, let's talk abortion. Ann's premise is that liberals (because, obviously, all liberals feel the same on every subject; liberals are a monolith like one might find in a Kubrick film) support a government-guaranteed right to abortion on demand, while conservatives of Coulter's stripe (see above about monolithism) support a government mandate that abortion be illegal. Any true conservative knows that neither of those options is the correct answer (despite how we may feel personally; I am virulently pro-choice, myself)-- the only conservative option is “abortion falls under the ninth and tenth amendments.” In other words, let the states decide. It's all right there in black and white, for anyone who cares to read the constitution.

Not that “constitutional law expert” Ann Coulter isn't above bending the laws a little. While she talks up the first amendment on a number of occasions here, it's pretty obvious that she'd like to see the first amendment (and a couple of others, notably the fifth, which she attacks over and over again while spewing invective against Miranda) go the way of the great auk. A pretty funny position for a “conservative”, someone for whom the Constitution holds the same mystic power as the Bible does for the “liberals in wolves' clothing”, as I've taken to calling the neocons in the past few years.

While I'd actually planned to make Coulter's unsurprising lack of actual conservative views the real substantive body of my non-review, as I was actually reading the book, I found my qualms about the sand upon which her arguments were founded taking a back seat to the woman's writing style (which, and this is surprising, Joe Maguire goes out of his way to praise numerous times in Brainless: The Lies and Lunacy of Ann Coulter). Simply put, Coulter is one of the shrieking harridans she's constantly attacking. Her writing style is based on unfunny, borderline-offensive “jokes” and ad hominem attacks rather than anything at all of substance. This isn't political writing, it's ranting, much of it unsubstantiated. That's all well and good when it's billed as ranting. I rant quite often myself, though I do at least attempt to back it up with facts sometimes, and I always clearly label ranting as ranting, and don't expect people to take it seriously. After all, it is ranting. Coulter, on the other hand, does seem to expect to be taken seriously. But whatever her views on the subject, it's obvious given her sales figures-- Godless debuted at number one on the New York Times bestseller list (a liberal rag she hates, by the by)-- that people do take her seriously. Which says a great deal more about the average Ann Coulter reader's lack of ability to think critically than it does about Ann Coulter, I guess. But then, Coulter subscribes to a belief system that considers it a sin to think critically, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised at that, either.

I wondered, when I was putting myself through the torture of attempting to read Ben Shapiro's worthless Porn Generation, where he'd gotten his writing style. Well, now I know, and I can safely avoid ever having to read trip like this again. Unless, that is, another drooling sycophant like Shapiro decides to ape Ann Coulter's barely-competent writing. (zero)

Not much merit here. Mostly hate mongering. The beligerence is about the level of something you'd expect from someone who'd recently bad touched a "Communist" dachshund.

Really enjoyed it, but I am a fan. I knew all the basics of the material Coulter covers (what conservative religious person isn't familiar with the usual attacks?) but I *still* learned something new and still found myself riveted. Preaching to the choir, maybe, but enjoyable!

Ann Coulter is so hateful! I guess it's her presentation that makes vast amounts of Republican men want to give weight to her inane drivel. Add that her (Vassar?) educational pedigree, and she is handed plenty of power she'd never earn without superficial charm.

Liberalism is a religion, and a whacked out one at that, but conservatism is a rational school of thought?
name calling is humor and/ or political commentary?

and what's up with Ann's hate for the 9-11 widows? How very Christian of her and compassionate conservative of her.

I'm really baffled what the appeal of this woman is.

Well, I told myself I wasn’t going to review an Ann Coulter book. Heck, I even told other people I wasn’t going to review an Ann Coulter book. But after recent discussions about Ann’s books, and reading through other reviews of her work, I just can’t resist jumping in.

In the interests of full disclosure, let me stipulate right here and now that I despise Ann Coulter. I not only despise most of the things she stands for, I also despise the way in which she chooses to present her ideas. Nonetheless, my review is not based on my personal opinion of Ann, but rather on just a couple of the many untruths presented in her book. I won’t call them “lies”, because for all I know Ann actually believes what she’s saying – but they are certainly factually false and/or grossly misrepresentational. In the interest of not writing a complete book myself, I’ll only discuss (and only briefly at that) two of Ann’s most famous falsehoods from this book.

So, let’s look at just two of the false claims that Ann makes:

1 -- Atheism is treated as the state religion of the USA.

This one is laughably false.

First, let’s look at the definition of "religion". According to the Compact Oxford English Dictionary, religion is: “the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods”. Or, the main definition from the American Heritage Dictionary: “Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.” Well, that lets out atheism right away. No supernatural powers there!

But even if we accept that Ann didn’t really mean what she said -- if we accept instead that she simply meant that atheism is somehow a widely institutionalized governmental policy -- even this weakened claim is still demonstrably false. For instance -- if atheism were truly a “state religion”, even in this limited sense, then why does every presidential candidate make a point of his religious devotion? Does anyone here seriously believe that an openly atheistic candidate could ever get elected?

Further -- although some people believe that prayer is banned from public schools, this is not actually true. As clearly stated by the US Dept. of Education: “Section 9524 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act ("ESEA") of 1965, as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001…. requires that, as a condition of receiving ESEA funds, a local educational agency ("LEA") must certify in writing to its State educational agency ("SEA") that it has no policy that prevents, or otherwise denies participation in, constitutionally protected prayer in public schools as set forth in this guidance.” “The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the First Amendment requires public school officials to be neutral in their treatment of religion, showing neither favoritism toward nor hostility against religious expression such as prayer.” “Although the Constitution forbids public school officials from directing or favoring prayer, students do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate," and the Supreme Court has made clear that "private religious speech, far from being a First Amendment orphan, is as fully protected under the Free Speech Clause as secular private expression…For example, "nothing in the Constitution ... prohibits any public school student from voluntarily praying at any time before, during, or after the school day," and students may pray with fellow students during the school day on the same terms and conditions that they may engage in other conversation or speech. Likewise, local school authorities… may not structure or administer such rules to discriminate against student prayer or religious speech.”

For further details of the Dept. of Education’s policy, look here: http://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/re...

2 -- Evolution is a creation myth -- and the theory of “Intelligent Design” has as much intellectual strength as the theory of evolution.

First off -- either Ann doesn’t understand the meaning of “creation myth”, or she doesn’t understand evolutionary theory, or -- more likely -- she doesn’t understand either one.

The definition of “myth” from the Compact Oxford English Dictionary reads: “a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining a natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events.” Well, that discounts evolutionary theory right off the bat -- no supernatural beings involved here! And there’s not much “traditional” about it, either -- in fact, evolutionary theory changes all the time as new evidence is discovered by scientists. As it happens, the willingness to modify theories given new evidence is one of the hallmarks of science as opposed to either myth or religion.

As for any supposed equivalence between evolutionary theory and “intelligent design” theory (ID), let’s take a look at the judge’s decision in Dover v Kitzmiller. This was a seminal court case which prevented a school district from requiring that “intelligent design” (ID) would be taught alongside evolutionary theory. The judge in the case, incidentally, was a conservative Republican who was appointed by George W. Bush -- not some wild-eyed liberal at all.

Judge Jones wrote: “After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and (3) ID’s negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. As we will discuss in more detail below, it is additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research. Expert testimony reveals that since the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena.[….] Methodological naturalism is a “ground rule” of science today which requires scientists to seek explanations in the world around us based upon what we can observe, test, replicate, and verify.[….] NAS (the National Academy of Science) is in agreement that science is limited to empirical, observable and ultimately testable data.[….] ID is predicated on supernatural causation, as we previously explained and as various expert testimony revealed. ….ID takes a natural phenomenon and, instead of accepting or seeking a natural explanation, argues that the explanation is supernatural.[….] It is notable that defense experts’ own mission, which mirrors that of the IDM itself, is to change the ground rules of science to allow supernatural causation of the natural world, which the Supreme Court in Edwards and the court in McLean correctly recognized as an inherently religious concept….defense expert Professor Fuller agreed that ID aspires to “change the ground rules” of science and lead defense expert Professor Behe admitted that his broadened definition of science, which encompasses ID, would also embrace astrology.[….] Not a single expert witness over the course of the six week trial identified one major scientific association, society or organization that endorsed ID as science. What is more, defense experts concede that ID is not a theory as that term is defined by the NAS and admit that ID is at best “fringe science” which has achieved no acceptance in the scientific community.”

So -- does anyone really think we ought to be teaching astrology in our public schools?? Even Prof. Behe, who Ann herself cites as one of her major tutors in the subject, admits that his "broadened definition of science...would also embrace astrology".

Judge Jones further stated:“…..we believe that arguments against evolution are not arguments for design. Expert testimony revealed that just because scientists cannot explain today how biological systems evolved does not mean that they cannot, and will not, be able to explain them tomorrow. …. just because scientists cannot explain every evolutionary detail does not undermine its validity as a scientific theory as no theory in science is fully understood….As referenced, the concept of irreducible complexity is ID’s alleged scientific centerpiece. Irreducible complexity is a negative argument against evolution, not proof of design, a point conceded by defense expert Professor Minnich. …. Irreducible complexity additionally fails to make a positive scientific case for ID.”

For the full text of Judge Jones’ decision, especially the portion discussing the scientific merits of ID and criticisms of evolutionary theory, look here: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Kitzmil...

Furthermore, at quite a few points throughout the book, Coulter either made up or misrepresented quotes in order to support her claims. For instance, in relation to her attacks on evolutionary theory –

A -- Ann claimed that atheists “need evolution to be true”. (pp. 199-200) In support of this claim, she cites a supposed quote from Richard Dawkins saying that "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist." Unfortunately for Coulter, the article she cited (which can be found here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/... ) doesn’t actually include any quote from Dawkins, much less the one she claims it does. Now, actually Dawkins did – more than 20 years ago – make a version of this statement, although Coulter couldn’t even get the quote right. The real quote, as well as several brief arguments showing that atheists don't actually “need evolution to be true”, can be found here: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA...

B -- On p. 231, Coulter quotes scientist Roger Fouts as saying that humans “are simply odd looking apes”. (The article that supposedly contains this quote can be found here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2... ) In fact, Fouts is not even mentioned in this article.

C -- On p. 222, Coulter quotes an article in the NYT which supposedly stated that fossils looked “as though they were just planted there”. (the full text of this article can be found here: http://www.nytimes.com/1991/04/23/sci... ). Actually, though, nothing in that article says anything of the sort.

Further, much more detailed, discussion of some of the many falsehoods and misrepresentations in this book can be found here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godless:...

In sum – there are many many outright falsehoods and/or misrepresentations throughout this book. I have barely even touched the tip of that humongous iceberg, in the interests of not overwhelming readers here. No matter what one’s particular political beliefs, surely all people of good intent should be able to agree that such blatant promulgation of misinformation should be condemned in the strongest of terms.

Wow, has Ann Coulter ever been on an episode of South Park? OR does she write them? There's nothing like getting the truth out there for everyone to laugh at (except those who don't get the joke - Hint: it's YOU then!)

It's interesting; I have numerous bookshelves here on Goodreads, and I couldn't decide where to place this book. It's not really Christian, not really Apologetics (partially), not really religious. I do have a special section that I call "Religious Crap Section" this is reserved for Benny Hinn, Dalai Lama, stuff by the Popes, The Mormons, and atheist crap by Dawkins/Hitchens/harris and anyone who's recently claimed to have vacationed in Heaven or Hell (Cough...Burpo!)
But this book is outside of all that. Not really comedy, nor is it totally political.
So i placed it in my Christian Apologetics section (defending the faith type stuff). And since most of my defense is against liberal christians and liberal atheists (and a few Muslims) it seems to feel somewhat at home there.
I do love how she addressed the faithful as Darwiniacs and the church of liberalism. I have seen this played out before my very eyes 100's of times.

I'm glad i'm not American: I'd hate to have to decide between Democrats and Republicans (or liberals and conservatives). I'll just vote for the King of Kings - that would be Jesus - and try to ignore the nastiness of modern society.
And that is what this book is really about: Ann deals with issues that affect us all. It's amazing how people can chose to abort babies and yet still feel smug about their superior morality - YES! That is Ann's point. Liberals are famous for this. And I know, i've chatted with thousands of them, and indeed they match perfectly and resemble every snarky bit of mockery that Ann correctly boxes them in. It sounds ludicrous "I Know!". But liberals are often exactly as Ann Coulter says they are. This is one crazy world we live in. I'm hoping there are some liberals who are even sick of liberals. Maybe?

But on to the important stuff:
I'm very curious about Ann's Christianity and theology. She mentions her God and Bible often (which is pretty awesome!) but I'd like to know more. Does she think she's honoring Jesus by some of the things she says? Maybe? I do think she goes too far on numerous occasions. She's definitely NOT writing Sunday school material here - and she never claims to. This is one of the things i'd love to chat with her about. I love humor more than the average person so I applaud her efforts fully. But for a person with so many important issues to discuss: everything gets dragged through the dirt and the message gets lost. She comes across very professionally on numerous T.V. shows, but her book seems to leave that behind in the name of mockery. It does make for good reading.

I find it strange that Ann Coulter fights atheistic and liberal science heartily - and yet she is not a young earth creationist? I'm surprised she hasn't done the research and carried her work a little further. Why blindly accept carbon dating and endless scientific assumptions about an old earth, when there's quit a few scientists proving how the world isn't as obviously ancient as atheists would love us to believe. (Yes Bill Nye - there is a Grand Canyon on every continent. Courtesy of Ian Juby and Genesis Week program.)
Fun bit of advice: if you find out what your enemies fully embrace - immediately assume the opposite may very well have much needed value and truth.

I'm not sure if there's a reason to read Ann's other books? I'll look into it. Complaining about liberals can only go so far...

Listen, why, why, WHY does she think that public school teachers are the "evil liberal clergy"? Come on. Public school should always stay secular. Why? Because it's not my job as a teacher to teach your kids religion. That's your responsibility as a parent. And seriously, if you are a Christian like Ann Coulter and want religion taught in schools, may I ask which one specifically? I mean, very specifically. Catholic? Eastern Orthodox? Baptist? Reformed Church of Latter Day Saints? Methodist? Spell it out for me because even though they're all Christian, they are not all the same. Please explain this to me because I'm stupid. Thank you.

I couldn't finish this book. This woman is an embarrassment to what she claims to believe in. I have no idea where she comes up with all the crap she writes about. Don't read this book! I wish I could give it less than 1 star.

Coulter's brash, irreverent style would make her a cultural icon if she were on the left. But even liberals ready to bust a gasket over her views will not be able to hold back a laugh now and then.

This is quite possibly the most disgusting work ever written or published.

Republicans should be ashamed to even have someone like Ann Coulter in their party. The book makes nothing but personal attacks to demean the Democratic Party and make Liberalism look like devil worship. If being liberal is that bad and wanting freedom from religion is so terrible, maybe Ann is the one who doesn’t belong in America: the nation built on Religious freedom and choice.