GODLESS

THE CHURCH OF LIBERALISM

A N N   C O U L T E R

reviewed by
gt slade
2 NOV 06

Coulter's theory of life is that Liberalism is a religion, accepted on faith. Followers "prove" their beliefs with shaky arguments she enjoys toppling, like that something is "generally accepted."

Ann demonstrates this best in her section on Evolution. As you probably did, I studied Darwin's Theory of Evolution in school. While it was referred to as a "theory," in the way the News call someone an "alleged" criminal, I don't recall any discussion of its validity. Ordinarily a skeptic, I never gave Evolution much thought because it didn't explain anything I needed to know. Who cares where humans came from? They were here when I arrived, they may be here after I'm gone. I'd rather know where they stash an infinite universe.

Supposedly, Evolution explains how human beings originated. It doesn't. And Coulter shows how Evolution is demonstrably false citing scientists, including atheists, with evidence. Sir Fred Hoyle determined the mathematical probability of the basic enzymes of life arising by random processes was 1 to 1 followed by 40,000 zeroes or "utterly miniscule." Initially, I thought that Ann had gone off the deep end. Now I'm waffling.

Coulter writes, "Darwiniacs want us to believe that DNA — something vastly more perfect and powerful and complex than Windows XP, a program that represents the culmination of tens of thousands of human progress — came to exist by means of nothing more than a series of random accidents starting in a puddle of prehistoric goo." Despite the misguided analogy (Windows XP was the result of random accidents), she raises a sharp point. Especially if it is true that in 1859 Darwin's "most virulent opponents were not fundamentalist Christians but paleontologists." I've visited many museums with fossils on display, and I cannot recall seeing evidence of a gradual evolution from ape to man.

While Darwinism may seem harmless, Ann feels it provided justification for racism and genocide. "The path between Darwinism and Nazism may not be ineluctable, but it is more ineluctable than the evolution path from monkey to man." Come to that, I was also taught about "race" in school. Alleged races that scientists often point out are non-existent. Godless would be worth the price just for her lively examination of Evolution, a main tenet of the Liberal religion.

Of course, disproving one religion hardly exonerates others. [Full disclosure. I am in the Church of God the Utterly Indifferent.]

gt's theory of evolution can be proven historically. Multiple gods of earlier times crystalised into Zeus, later Jupiter and his minions. While these are considered mythology today, they were religion then. Until monotheism ["e pluribus unum" yum] was patented by Judaism, appropriated by Christianity and recycled by Mohammud, with other approaches like Buddhism in the wings. Jews may take exception to being lumped into Christianity. Christian in Godless "is intended to include anyone who who subscribes to the Bible of the God of Abraham, including Jews and others." Shouldn't that be the other way around?

If there was one god, as many Americans believe, who designed Adam and Eve, why did he allow their descendents forget his existence and pray to multiple gods?

Coulter observes that rational, scientific liberals ignore science that doesn't meet their requirements. AIDS affects gays and intravenous drug users, but liberals didn't want to stigmatise these groups, so they spread misinformation about a hetereosexual AIDS epidemic that never materialised, as they knew it wouldn't. (Then again, Republicans exploited that fear to justify their "Hey horny teens, just say no" campaign.) The author calls J Everett Koop a buffoon, who can disagree?

Then there's the whole breast implant hoax. "In 1992, FDA Commissioner David Kessler banned silicone breast implants — not because the FDA had found anything wrong with silicone in the body but because women were hysterical." This unscientific decision proved costly, bosoms being big business. In a way, it makes sense for liberals to discourage breast implants. It might be anti-feminist to want huge tits.

Coulter presses hot buttons like stem cell research and global warming. All I know for sure about these issues is that they have become politicised, mostly because of government involvement in funding.

Abortion, too. Surprisingly, Ann offers Dianne Feinstein's statement that Roe v Wade is critically important because "women all over America have come to depend on it" for what Coulter calls "the right to have sex with men they don't want children with." After surfing MySpace for awhile, it strikes me than many young women don't want children at all — with anyone, ever. Feinstein is herself an argument for abortion, or at least euthenasia.

Ann does establish that Democrats are "obsessed" with abortion, blinding them to reason, which is not an obsession for them. Another religious tenet? Of course, Ann's side are just as intractible. She says John Kerry endorsed taxpayer-funded abortions because you don't "deny a poor person the right to be able to have whatever the Constitution affords them if they can't afford it otherwise." Anyone who has read the Constitution knows abortion is never alluded to, and that Kerry is another dim bulb. Remember, he had lower grades than Bush at Yale. Neither of them understand the Constitution.

There are familiar themes, where Coulter's light touch averts boredom. Environmentalism: "The various weeds and vermin liberals are always trying to save are no more distinguishable than individual styles of rap music." Rap is not music; otherwise, well put.

Regarding the news media, we recognise the bias towards the Democrats or Liberals or just about anyone Ann Coulter opposes. She jests that O'Reilly has more than 3 million viewers a night, "while CNN viewers are measured in the hundreds of thousands and MSNBC by the occasional show of hands." I'll note that while O'Reilly has another New York Times best seller, none of his books have been reviewed by the journal of record or whatever they are calling themselves these days.

She writes knowledgeably about why American schools fail, compared to those in other nations. Nothing new, except for pointing out that teachers are the new prophets, who cannot be criticised, much like Mohammed in his makeshift religion. I received a decent education in public schools, except for Race and Evolution.

Some controversy erupted over a few observations she made in her examination of political debate. Coulter maintains that Democrats are averse to serious debate, explaining their hatred of Fox News, so to circumvent that, they use "sobbing, hysterical women" as spokeswomen because they are unassailable. If your son or husband was killed, you have "absolute moral authority." Perhaps Coulter wanted to puncture that protective bubble. In context, she merely observes that everyone is entitled to her opinion, and everyone else is entitled to disagree.

Coulter does not mention how Republicans try to limit debate, or conspire with Democrats to exclude other parties from the electoral process. Not just debates, even the news. With the exception of Kinky Friedman, how many independent candidates have you seen mentioned in this election cycle? For me, the answer is "none."

This is not an essay collection, it's all new, even if the topics aren't. I have digested several so-called conservative scrapples over the past few years. Coulter is the sharpest, at the top of her game here. Whether you read Godless for solace or amusement, you will get more than your money's worth.

Not only do I recommend this book, I would be honoured for Ann Coulter to autograph my copy if she ever dares appear in the Bay Area.

©2006 gt slade