Godless: The Church of Liberalism

Front cover of Godless: The Church of Liberalism

Great and terrible Books

On our shelf:

Combat Liberalism Vanity publishing In Defense of Internment: The Case for "Racial Profiling" in World War II and the War on Terror The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail True Allegiance Holy Terror

Writer's block

Bart Ehrman Mark Fuhrman Julie Beischel Martin Luther Phyllis Schlafly Joel D. Wallach v - t - e

Godless: The Church of Liberalism (ISBN 1400054214) published on June 6th 2006 by right-wing author Ann Coulter, and easily her most infamous. The main thesis of the book is that "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."

What?

"Religion" is defined in many ways, and Coulter uses that vagueness to never actually have to defend the thesis of her book. Notice how at no point did Coulter declare that liberalism has its own God or gods, which would actually be required for it to be considered a religion. She does attempt to defend this by saying "Shintoism and Buddhism have no Creator God either, and they are considered religions." However, although those religions don't have any "Creator God" specifically, they still worship theistic deities. Shintoism estimates that there could be an infinite number of gods, and many sects of Buddhism do worship theistic deities.

Coulter claims that liberals are in denial about this, writing "Liberals love to boast that they are not 'religious,' which is what one would expect to hear from the state-sanctioned religion." Historically, theocratic civilizations have never had any issue declaring their religiosity. Is Coulter under the impression that Saudi Arabia, where “There is no god but God; Muhammad is the prophet of God," is a slogan on their national flag, hides how religious it is?

Coulter takes the approach that liberalism and Christianity are inherently at odds. "Liberalism," she claims, "is a comprehensive belief system denying the Christian belief in man's immortal soul." (What liberalism and said belief even have to do with one another is never explained.) However, this dichotomy is utterly false, as many liberals have a belief in God — some of whom Coulter mentions in this very book. For example, the book makes two references to the Reverend Al Sharpton, once to mock him for watching Fahrenheit 9/11 (a film made by Michael Moore, a practicing Catholic) and once to quote him going after Republicans for being against both abortion and programs that help poor children. (Only the second of which is mentioned in the index of the book, by the way.)

The fact is, despite Coulter claiming that she has "a very good idea of what [Christians] believe," it seems like she has cherry-picked the most far-right denominations of Christianity out of the over two thousand that exist. For example, Ann writes that this "godless" morality states that "Abortion is the sacrament and Roe v. Wade is Holy Writ." However, this ignores the Christian denominations that are pro-choice in regards to abortion. The Unitarian Universalists, the Episcopal Church, the United Church of Christ, the Presbyterian Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the African Methodist Episcopal Church, and the United Methodist Church specifically are all more likely to be pro-choice on the topic of abortion than the general population. In the same regard, this statement totally ignores that there are atheists who are pro-life, with Christopher Hitchens serving as an example.

The absolute flimsy nature of this premise can be seen in how little Coulter does to actually justify it past the first chapter. The book does not see Coulter making genuine comparisons between, say, the way the religious treat priests and the way liberals treat public school teachers, it's just her complaining about public school teachers for an entire chapter with the occasional piece of religious jargon thrown in haphazardly. The idea that the death penalty doesn't deter criminals "is an article of faith, not a statement of empirical fact", for example. Never mind that we do have empirical evidence that the death penalty doesn't deter crime. Ironically, a better example of an "article of faith" would be Coulter's claim that "there are few better methods of distinguishing the guilty from the innocent than a confession" a statement that empirical evidence does fail to prove.

Honestly, it is more than a little surprising how not dogmatic some of the claims of supposedly religious figures are. Coulter quotes a tenth grade teacher criticizing George W. Bush, saying to his students "What I am trying to get you to do is think more in depth." Is Coulter under the impression that somebody interested in nothing but unconditional worship would ever say such a thing? Because this seems strikingly out of character for a supposedly dogmatic authority figure.

What do liberals worship?

According to Coulter, "as a matter of faith, liberals believe: Darwinism is fact, people are born gay, child-molesters can be rehabilitated, recycling is a virtue, and chastity is not." However, one could easily think of several ways many people considered "liberals" violate Coulter’s assumptions. Take her example of belief in evolution: Nobody would deny William Jennings Bryan was left-wing (he "fused Populist rhetoric and policies with a new Democratic coalition" writes a website dedicated to the famous people of Nebraska); however, he was also an avid creationist to the point of arguing for the prosecution in the famous Scopes Monkey Trial. In the same regard, one can think of various conservatives who believe in evolution, such as Charles Krauthammer.

In the same regard as above, both Bill Clinton and Joe Biden are infamous for their "tough on crime" records. (However, Coulter acknowledges that "No Democrat ever abandoned the Democrats' position on crime more aggressively than Bill Clinton," but that just raises more questions: Was Clinton not a liberal? If not, then why does Coulter write about him so mockingly throughout this book? If so, then is she saying that holding an article of faith central to what she claims is the "liberal religion" is not required to actually be a liberal?) Hillary Clinton once wrote "I think we need to do everything in our power to discourage sexual activity and encourage abstinence." For somebody who writes so much about liberalism, Coulter seems to have no idea what those she writes about actually believe.

Evolution

The longest section of this book, taking up four entire chapters, is Coulter’s attempt to debunk evolution. According to her, "Liberals' creation myth is Charles Darwin's theory of evolution," which is rather strange given that evolution isn't about "creation" (that would be abiogenesis).

Coulter‘s main objection to evolution seems to be that she can't imagine an organism changing the amount required to produce a new species. She writes:

Evolution is not selective breeding, which produces thoroughbred horses, pedigreed dogs, colored cotton, and so on. Evolution is not the capacity of bacteria to develop antibiotic resistance, but which never evolves into anything but more bacteria. Evolution is not the phenomenon of an existing species changing over the course of many years . . . In fact, evolution is not adaptive characteristics developing within a species at all. Darwin's theory says we get a new species, not a taller version of the same species.

Coulter doesn't actually define what a "species" is, let alone what a new one would entail. What mutations would a bacteria have to undergo before it is no longer a bacteria? Coulter writes that "Even the evolution fetishists do not claim that a mutating AIDS virus is on its way up the tree of life, soon to be a kangaroo." However, when exactly does a creature become a kangaroo? Coulter doesn't answer that, because doing so would quickly cause her to realize that she has no idea what she's talking about. Richard Dawkins has made the point that it's near impossible to create an exact cut-off point regarding when one species becomes another, because actually creating a timeline of ancestors shows parents having slightly different children, with the sheer amount of differences between where we started this process and where we left off being the evidence that it's a different species. Coulter even admits that these small changes are very much possible, but for some reason, these changes cumulating over time to create a totally different species is too much.

One of Coulter‘s more absurd claims — and that is saying a lot — is that "If a rapidly mutating bacterium or virus were proof of 'evolution,' then after three billion years of nonstop evolution, the only life forms we would have on Earth would be extremely sturdy bacteria and viruses." This claim isn't so baffling because it's incorrect — in fact, technically speaking, it's not — but more because it shows Coulter has no idea what she's talking about. Yes, obviously if the only organism on a planet is bacteria, by definition "nonstop evolution" (as opposed to evolution which turns on and off with the flick of a switch, I guess) would not change that. However, bacteria has only been on this planet for, funnily enough, three billion years. Meanwhile, the Earth has existed for roughly four and a half billion years. The earliest forms of life were microbes, far simpler than even the most basic bacteria which exists today. Obviously expecting bacteria to evolve into any creature which exists today would be absurd, because those creatures split along their evolutionary paths the second bacteria became — well, bacteria. Even an article from 2006, the same year this book came out, acknowledges that "Evolutionary biologists generally agree that humans and other living species are descended from bacterialike ancestors. But before about two billion years ago, human ancestors branched off."

Jersey Girls

The most infamous chapter of this already infamous book is easily chapter five, where Coulter takes on "Sobbing hysterical women," or the Jersey Girls, the four women who lost their husbands after 9/11 and became political activists as a result. According to Coulter, "[Liberals] choose only messengers whom we're not allowed to reply to," never mind that she's writing this in a book replying to the arguments of these very people. This was made even dumber by her defending herself on The Tonight Show by saying "Other people have written acerbic remarks about Democrats sending out victims," begging the question of who exactly is being silenced here.

Coulter discussed these comments with Matt Lauer on The Today Show the same day that the book was published, specifically her saying, "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 husband's death so much." Coulter continued to double down on these comments by saying the women were "cutting commercials for Kerry," and said that these women are nothing more than Democratic Party partisans. Of course, when Lauer pointed out that these women had criticized Bill Clinton (whom Coulter also claimed they were "cutting commercials for" in an interview with Tucker Carlson) and the Democrats, Coulter replied, "not the ones I'm talking about." As if there are multiple sets of Jersey Girls out there, some who have criticized Clinton and some who haven't.

Even many of Coulter's friends were unable to defend these comments. Bill O'Reilly said of them:

Stop Ann Coulter before she bombs again. Most Americans reject that kind of vitriol because it is mean and counterproductive… So if Ann Coulter is trying to persuade people to her views, the personal attack is foolish… I think this kind of stuff does conservatives more harm than good, because it basically reinforces what the left is trying to sell, that the right is mean, out of control, whatever other adjectives you want to put in there.

Critics noted a variety of issues with the attack, both due to how cruel it is, but also because of how nonsensical the point was. As one critic of Coulter pointed out, these statements "would carry a lot more weight if it didn't come from someone who used Paula Jones as a career-ladders rung, flips her blond tresses on TV while proclaiming that her looks give her license to say what others won't, and whines about ad hominem attacks while calling mourners 'self-obsessed.'"

Plagiarism

John Barrie, a professor and creator of a software which detects plagiarism, found three examples of "textbook plagiarism" in Godless. Susan Estrich, in her book Soulless: Ann Coulter and the Right-Wing Church of Hate, lists five such examples. The specific examples are reprinted below:

Ann Coulter	Other Source
The massive Dickey-Lincoln Damn, a $227 million hydroelectric project proposed on upper St. John River in Maine, was halted by the discovery of the Furbish lousewort, a plant previously believed to be extinct.	The massive Dickey-Lincoln Dam, a $227 million hydroelectric project proposed on upper St. John River, is halted by the discovery of the Furbish lousewort, a plant believed to be extinct.
. . . the judge called it "inconceivable" that Tiffany's injuries were caused by wrestling moves. After the trial, Tate's new lawyers admitted that the "wrestling defense" was "bogus."	. . . the presiding Judge said that it was “inconceivable” that Tiffany Eunick’s injuries were caused by Lionel Tate mimicking wrestling moves. Indeed, since the trial ended, Lionel Tate’s new lawyers have filed court papers in which they admit that the “wrestling defense” was, in their words, “bogus.”
As the president of the Mississippi Baptist Convention, Pickering presided over a meeting where the convention adopted a resolution for legislation to outlaw abortion.	As the president of the Mississippi Baptist Convention, Judge Pickering presided over a 1984 meeting where the convention adopted a resolution calling for legislation to outlaw abortion.
A short list of the successful treatments achieved by adult stem cells ate[sic] these: Rebuilding livers wracked by otherwise irreversible cirrhosis Repairing spinal cord injuries by using stem cells from nasal and sinus regions. Completely reversing Type 1 diabetes in mice using adult spleen cells Putting Crohn's disease into remission with the patient's own blood stem cells Putting lupus into remission using stem cells from the patient's bloodstream Treating sickle-cell anemia using stem cells from umbilical cord blood Repairing the heart muscles in patients with congestive heart failure using adult stem cells from bone marrow Repairing heart attack damage with the patient's own blood stem cells Restoring bone marrow in cancer patients using stem cells from umbilical cord blood Putting leukemia into remission using umbilical cord blood Healing bone fractures with bone marrow cells Restoring sight in blind people using an ocular surface stem cell transplant and a cornea transplant Treating urinary incontinence using stem cells from underarm muscle Reversing severe combined immunodeficiency (SCID) with genetically modified adult stem cells Restoring blood circulation in legs with bone marrow stem cells	At the same time, a long list of successful experimental treatments have been achieved using ethical sources of stem cells. These include: Spinal cord injury repair (using stem cells from nasal and sinus regions) Complete reversal of juvenile diabetes in mice using adult spleen cells, with Harvard now preparing for human patient trials using spleen cells Crohn’s Disease put into remission (using patient’s blood stem cells) Lupus put into remission (using stem cells from patient’s bloodstream) Parkinson’s disease put into remission (using patient’s brain stem cells) Repair heart muscle in cases of congestive heart failure (using stem cells from bone marrow) Repair heart attack damage (using the patient’s own blood stem cells) Restore bone marrow in cancer patients (using stem cells from umbilical cord blood) Restore weak heart muscles (using immature skeletal muscle cells) Put leukemia into remission (using umbilical cord blood) Heal bone fractures (using bone marrow cells) Restore a blind man’s sight (using an ocular surface stem-cell transplant & a cornea transplant) Recovery from a stroke (using stem cells from bone marrow) Treat urinary incontinence (using under arm muscle stem cells) Reverse severe combined immunodeficiency (SCID) (using genetically modified adult stem cells) Restore blood circulation in legs (using bone marrow stem cells) Treat sickle-cell anemia (using stem cells from umbilical cord blood)
It's also possible that galactic ruler Xenu brought billions of people to Earth 73 million years ago, piled them around volcanoes, and blew them up with hydrogen bombs, sending their souls flying every which way until they landed on the bodies of living humans, where they still invisibly reside today — as Scientology's L. Ron Hubbard claimed.	Yes, according to Scientology doctrine, a galactic ruler named Xenu brought billions of people to Earth 75 million years ago, stacked them around volcanoes and blew them up with hydrogen bombs. Their souls then clustered together and stuck to the bodies of the living.

Further reading

• Godless: The Church of Liberalism by Ann Coulter (2006) Crown Forum. ISBN 1400054206.