Godless: The Church of Liberalism
5341677
224606196
2008-07-09T17:00:28Z
Lou Sander
14711
[[WP:UNDO|Undid]] revision 224585437 by [[Special:Contributions/YowiePower|YowiePower]] ([[User talk:YowiePower|talk]]) revert vandalism
{{Infobox Book
| name = Godless:<br>The Church of Liberalism
| title_orig =
| translator =
| image = [[Image:Godless Cover.JPG|200px]]
| image_caption =
| author = [[Ann Coulter]]
| illustrator =
| cover_artist =
| country = [[USA]]
| language = [[English language|English]]
| series =
| subject = Politics
| genre = Non-fiction (essays)
| publisher = Crown Forum
| release_date = June 6th, 2006
| english_release_date =
| media_type =
| pages =
| isbn = 1400054206
| preceded_by =
| followed_by =
}}
'''''Godless: The Church of Liberalism''''' is a [[book]] by constitutional [[lawyer]], best selling author and [[American conservatism|conservative]] columnist [[Ann Coulter]]. The book is an argument against [[American liberalism]], which Coulter regards as so anti-scientific and taking so many things on faith that it amounts to a "primitive [[religion]]" which has "its own [[cosmology]], 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."<ref>"Ann Coulter’s new book Godless: The Church of Liberalism is about how Liberalism has literally become a state enforced form of faith." [http://www.independentconservative.com/2006/06/12/coulters_godless/ Ann Coulter's ''Godless'' Makes the Liberals' Heads Spin With Obfuscation!]</ref>
==Central thesis==
Coulter argues that liberalism rejects the idea of [[God]] and reviles people of faith, yet bears all the attributes of a religion itself.<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). [http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=/SpecialReports/archive/200606/SPE20060606a.html CyberCast News Service]</ref> Coulter argues that the tenets of the liberal "church" are:
*[[Creation myth]]s ([[theory of evolution]])
*[[Sacrament]]s - Coulter compares [[abortion]] to "virgin sacrifice"<ref>"It's their version of virgin sacrifice. The Democrats will betray any special interest group -- except the pro-abortion ladies. If you mean why is it the holiest sacrament of the liberal religion, it is because they think if women have access to easy abortions, they can engage in carefree trysts without consequence." [http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=/SpecialReports/archive/200606/SPE20060606a.html]</ref>
*[[Bible|Holy Writ]] ([[Roe v. Wade]])
*[[Martyr]]s (from [[Alger Hiss]] to [[Mumia Abu Jamal]])
*[[Clergy]] (public school teachers)
*[[Place of worship|Churches]] (government schools, where [[prayer]] is prohibited but [[condom]]s are free)
*[[Infallibility of the church|Doctrine of infallibility]] (as manifest in the "absolute moral authority" of spokespeople from [[Cindy Sheehan]] to [[Max Cleland]])
*[[Cosmology]] ([[Big Bang]], in which mankind is an inconsequential accident)
==The 9/11 "Jersey Girls"==
In the book, Coulter criticized the [[Jersey Girls]], four 9/11 widows who helped push for the [[9/11 Commission]] and have been critical of US security policies (see [[Ann Coulter#The 9.2F11 .22Jersey Girls.22|Jersey Girls controversy]])
To put the criticism in context, on page 103 of Godless, Coulter writes "They first came together to complain that the $1.6 million average settlement to be paid to 9/11 victims' families by the government was not large enough." Coulter goes on to say "These... women seemed genuinely unaware that 9/11 was an attack on our nation and acted as if the terrorist attacks happened only to them. The whole nation was wounded, all of our lives reduced." Her point, in context, being that these few widows were not the only victims that day. She also writes that they were [[Age disparity in sexual relationships|gold digger]]s, "[[harpy|harpies]]", and that they needed to hurry up and appear in ''[[Playboy]]'' before their "shelf life" expired.
On June 8, 2006, Coulter appeared at a book signing in [[Huntington, New York]], 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.<ref>[http://www.newsday.com/news/local/longisland/ny-licoult0608,0,4498073.story?coll=ny-top-headlines]{{Dead link|date=March 2008}}</ref> At the same time many others agreed with Coulter's proposition that these women were exploiting their tragedy for personal remuneration and political motives, using 9/11 to further a politically left agenda.
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."[http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110008497] The word "ban" was replaced with the word "boycott" a few days later.{{Fact|date=November 2007}}<ref>per details at [[Linda Stender]] </ref>
== Christianity as represented in the book ==
The book begins with a quotation from the Holy Bible: ''"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"''
Coulter also says in a footnote, "Throughout this book, I often refer to [[Christian]]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 [[Bible]] of the God of [[Abraham]], including [[Jew]]s and others."
== Science and intelligent design ==
Coulter, citing various critics of evolution and experts on intelligent design,<ref name="science_background">Coulter, Ann, ''Godless: The Church of Liberalism''. From the book jacket: I couldn't have written about evolution without the generous tutoring of Michael Behe, David Berlinski, and William Dembski, all of whom are fabulous at translating complex ideas, unlike liberal arts types, who constantly force me to the dictionary to relearn the meaning of quotidian."</ref> devotes approximately one-third of the book to attacks on [[evolution]], which Coulter terms "[[Darwinism]]." Coulter turned to leading [[intelligent design]] proponents for tutors in writing this section of the book: "I couldn't have written about evolution without the generous tutoring of [[Michael Behe]], [[David Berlinski]], and [[William Dembski]]…"<ref name="science_background"> Behe, Dembski and Berlinski are all fellows of the [[Discovery Institute]], the hub of the [[intelligent design]] movement, which Coulter endorses in the book.<ref>[http://www.discovery.org/csc/fellows.php CSC - Center for Science and Culture<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref>
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 [[cosmogony]]. The chapter begins:<blockquote>"Liberals' creation myth is Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, which is about one notch above [[Scientology]] in scientific rigor. It's a make-believe story, based on a theory that is a [[Tautology (logic)|tautology]], 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 [[parody]]—the "Giant [[Raccoon]]'s Flatulence Theory"—to illustrate what she sees as fallacious arguments of those who espouse the theory of [[evolution]]. 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 [[modern evolutionary synthesis]] 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 evolutionary arguments against creationism, such as [[Galapagos finches]], the [[Peppered moth evolution|peppered moth]], [[Piltdown man]], [[Archaeoraptor]], [[Recapitulation theory|Haeckel's drawings]], and the [[Miller-Urey experiment]], 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 claims, such as Coulter's, that the [[modern evolutionary synthesis]] lacks scientific [[rigour|rigor]], 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 [[United States National Academy of Sciences]] which says that evolution is one of the most thoroughly tested and confirmed theories in science.<ref name=NAS>''[http://darwin.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6024&page=1 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>''[http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA500.html 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>''[http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA202.html Claim CA202]: Evolution has not been, and cannot be, proved.'' Index to Creationist Claims, edited by Mark Isaak. The TalkOrigins Archive. 2005.</ref><ref>''[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ 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>''[http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA602.html Claim CA602]: Evolution is atheistic. '' Index to Creationist Claims, edited by Mark Isaak. The TalkOrigins Archive. 2005.</ref> The [[scientific community]]<ref>See: 1) [[List of scientific societies rejecting intelligent design]] 2) [[Wikisource:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District 4: whether ID is science#Page 83 of 139|Kitzmiller v. Dover page 83]]. The Discovery Institute's [http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/ Dissent From Darwin Petition] has been signed by about 500 scientists. The AAAS, the largest association of scientists in the U.S., has 120,000 members, and [http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2002/1106id2.shtml firmly rejects ID]. More than 70,000 Australian scientists and educators [http://www.science.unsw.edu.au/news/2005/intelligent.html condemn teaching of intelligent design in school science classes]. [http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/8408_statements_from_scientific_and_12_19_2002.asp List of statements from scientific professional organizations] on the status intelligent design and other forms of creationism. </ref> also views intelligent design not as a valid [[scientific theory]] but as [[pseudoscience]]<ref>[[National Science Teachers Association]], 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 [http://www.nsta.org/pressroom&news_story_ID=50794 intelligent design is not science] </ref> or [[junk science]]. <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.[http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/050530fa_fact Devolution—Why intelligent design isn't.] Also, [[Robert T. Pennock]] Tower of Babel: The Evidence Against the New Creationism. </ref> The National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of [[supernatural]] intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by [[scientific experiment|experiment]], do not generate any predictions and propose no new [[hypothesis|hypotheses]] of their own.<ref name=NAS/>
Coulter's reliance on so-called controversial sources for science, intelligent design proponents and creationist sources, has prompted some critics of the [[intelligent design movement]] to analyze her claims. [[PZ 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 [[theory|theories]] are explanations for data.<ref>[http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/06/ann_coulter_no_evidence_for_ev.php Ann Coulter: No evidence for evolution?] PZ Myers. Pharyngula, scienceblogs.com June 18, 2006</ref> In response to Coulter's citing of [[Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate)|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."<ref>[http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/06/anne_coulter_cl_1.html Ann Coulter: Clueless] Ian Musgrave. The Panda's Thumb, June 18, 2006</ref> James Downard criticized Coulter's favoring of [[secondary source]]s over [[primary source]]s, saying "she compulsively reads inaccurate antievolutionary sources and accepts them on account of their reinforcement of what she wants to be true."<ref>[http://www.talkreason.org/articles/coulter1.cfm Secondary Addiction: Ann Coulter on Evolution Part I] [http://www.talkreason.org/articles/coulter2.cfm Part II] James Downard. TalkReason, June 2006.</ref>
[[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 and contrary to science.<ref>[http://mediamatters.org/items/200607070010 Ann Coulter's "Flatulent Raccoon Theory"] [[Media Matters for America]] Jul 7, 2006</ref>
===Intelligent design and public education===
One of Coulter's primary points is that there is no mention of intelligent design in the public school system. Coulter asserts that students should have the opportunity to debate evolution versus intelligent design in a classroom setting, a central tenet of the Discovery Institute's [[Teach the Controversy]] strategy employed by the [[intelligent design movement]]. Coulter argues that intelligent design proponents' challenges to the theory of evolution are immediately disqualified as being based on religious beliefs. Coulter claims this is evidence of a liberal-left conspiracy to create generations of atheists taught through the public school system.{{Fact|date=February 2007}}
The world's largest general scientific society, [[American Association for the Advancement of Science]], representing 262 affiliated societies and academies of science and 10 million individuals, has said that "although advocates of Intelligent Design usually avoid mentioning a specific creator, the concept is in fact religious, not scientific" and that efforts to
teach "the controversy" are flawed as "there is no significant controversy within the scientific
community about the validity of the theory of evolution. The current controversy surrounding the teaching of evolution is
not a scientific one."<ref>
[http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/pdf/0219boardstatement.pdf AAAS Statement on the Teaching of Evolution] [[American Association for the Advancement of Science]]. February 16, 2006 (PDF file)</ref> The ruling in [[Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District]] found that intelligent design is not science but is essentially religious in nature and that "ID's backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the ''controversy'',<!--EMPHASIS IN ORIGINAL--> but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard. The goal of the IDM is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID."<ref>[[Wikisource:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/6:Curriculum, Conclusion|Ruling]], [[Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District]], Case No. 04cv2688. December 20, 2005 </ref>
== Accusations of plagiarism, distortions and falsehoods ==
John Barrie, creator of [[iParadigms, LLC]]'s plagiarism-detection software, found in the book three instances of what he claims to be plagiarism.<ref>[http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/copycatty_coulter_pilfers_prose__pro_nationalnews_philip_recchia.htm Copycatty Coulter Pilfers Prose: Pro] 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>[http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/In_new_book_Coulter_cribs_stem_0614.html In new book, Coulter 'cribs' stem cell list from right-to-life group] 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>[http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/001070.php List of Coulter Plagiarism Allegations] Justin Rood, July 7, 2006</ref> Coulter's publisher [[Crown Publishing Group]] has since characterized the charges as being "as trivial and meritless as they are irresponsible."
<ref>"[http://www.sunherald.com/mld/sunherald/entertainment/15008149.htm Syndicator denies Coulter lifted material]." ''[[Sun Herald]].'' [[July 10]], [[2006]]. Retrieved on [[July 11]], [[2006]].</ref>
On August 7, 2006 [[Media Matters for America]] claimed that 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>[http://mediamatters.org/items/200608070002 Endnotes in Coulter's latest book rife with distortions and falsehoods] [[Media Matters for America]] August 7, 2006 </ref>
==References==
<div class="references-small"><references/></div>
==External links==
*[http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/06/06.html#a8602 Coulter on ''The Today Show'': Criticism of four 9/11 widows] - Transcript and video of ''The Today Show'' interview with Matt Lauer (June 6, 2006).
*[http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1213 William Dembski on Coulter and Godless: The Church of Liberalism]
*[http://www.americanprowler.com/dsp_article.asp?art_id=10026 Brain Food (A column discussing each chapter)]
*[http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/06-09-21.html A critical review from Skeptic Magazine]
*[http://godlessanncoulter.blogspot.com free analysis of Ann Coulter's new book Godless: The Church of Liberalism by blogger Scoobie Davis]
*[http://www.courant.com/features/lifestyle/hc-susan0614.artjun14,0,3336901.column?coll=hc-utility-features-life Susan Campbell, Hartford ''Courant'': Resisting The Urge To Dance On Ann Coulter's Head, June 14, 2006]
*[http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/In_new_book_Coulter_cribs_stem_0614.html Ron Brynaert: In new book, Coulter 'cribs' stem cell list from right-to-life group]
* [http://www.talkreason.org/articles/coulter1.cfm Ann Coulter on Evolution (Part I)] [http://www.talkreason.org/articles/coulter2.cfm (Part II)] [http://www.talkreason.org/articles/coulter3.cfm (Part III)], a site on evolutionary science reviews and critiques Coulter's sources and writing
*[http://mediamatters.org/items/200607070010 Ann Coulter's "Flatulent Raccoon Theory"] Media Matters for America charges that her book Godless, is full of misrepresentations on evolution
*[http://www.epinions.com/content_330268708484 Michael Scapp on Coulter and Godless: The Church of Liberalism]
*[http://reverent.org/coulterism_or_simkinism.html Quiz: Coulterism, or not?]
*[http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/06-09-21.html Provonsha, Matthew; A review of ''Godless'' at skeptic.com]
[[Category:2006 books]]
[[Category:Books by Ann Coulter]]
[[Category:Books critical of liberalism]]
[[Category:Books about the United States]]
[[Category:Intelligent design books]]
[[Category:Creationist objections to evolution]]