Home » Intelligent Design » Coulter Does NYT a Favor; Reviews Own Book

Coulter Does NYT a Favor; Reviews Own Book

Coulter Does NYT a Favor; Reviews Own Book
by Ann Coulter

HIGHLIGHT: Students are actually required to wear “Creationism Is Shameful” T-shirts in Dover, Pa., where — thanks to a lawsuit by the ACLU — the liberal clergy have declared Darwinism the only true church, immunized from argument. Ye shall put no other God before it. Not one.

Liberals believe in Darwinism as a matter of faith, despite the fact that, at this point, the only thing that can be said for certain about Darwinism is that it would take less time for (1) a single-celled organism to evolve into a human being through mutation and natural selection than for (2) Darwinists to admit they have no proof of (1).

If only Darwinism were true, someday we might evolve public schools with the ability to entertain opposable ideas about the creation of man.

=-=-=-=-=-

The long-anticipated book Godless: The Church of Liberalism was finally released this week. If the New York Times reviews it at all, they’ll only talk about the Ann Coulter action-figure doll, so I think I’ll write my own review.

Godless begins with a murder at the Louvre and then takes readers on a roller-coaster ride through the Church of Liberalism in a desperate game of cat and mouse in which the hunter becomes the hunted — with a twist at the end you simply won’t believe! It’s a real page-turner — even the book-on-tape version and large-print edition! Who knew a book about politics could make such an ideal gift — especially with Father’s Day just two weeks away!

The main problem with Godless is that I had to walk through the valley of darkness to find it. You will have to push past surly bookstore clerks, proceed past the weird people in the “self-help” section, and finally past the stacks and stacks of Hillary Clinton’s memoirs. If all else fails, ask for the “hate speech” section of your local bookstore. Ironically, if you find Godless without asking for assistance, it’s considered a minor miracle.

This is not a book about liberals. I stress this in anticipation of Alan Colmes hectoring the author to name names. (For people who resented being asked to “name names” during the 1950s, these liberals sure aren’t shy about demanding that conservatives do the same today.)

It is a book about liberalism, our official state religion. Liberalism is a doctrine with a specific set of tenets that can be discussed, just like other religions.

The Christian religion, for example, frowns on lying and premarital sex. That is simply a fact about Christianity. This does not mean no Christian has ever lied or had premarital sex. Indeed, some Christians have committed murder, adultery, thievery, gluttony. That does not mean there’s no such thing as Christianity any more than a videotape of Rep. William Jefferson accepting cash bribes means there’s no such thing as congressional ethics rules.

Similarly, the liberal religion supports abortion, but that doesn’t mean every single liberal has had an abortion. We can rejoice that liberals do not always practice their religion.

Godless examines a set of beliefs known as “liberalism.” It is the doctrine that prompts otherwise seemingly sane people to propose teaching children how to masturbate, allowing gays to marry, releasing murderers from prison, and teaching children that they share a common ancestor with the earthworm. (They haven’t yet found the common ancestor … but like O.J., the search continues.)

The demand that their religion be discussed only with reference to specific individuals — who is godless? are you saying I’m godless? — is simply an attempt to prevent us from talking about their religion. This tactic didn’t work with Slander or Treason, and it’s not going to work now.

It’s not just that liberals ban Reform rabbis from saying brief prayers at high school graduations and swoop down on courthouses and town squares across America to cart off Ten Commandments monuments. The liberal hostility to God-based religions has already been copiously documented by many others. Godless goes far beyond this well-established liberal hostility to real religions.

The thesis of Godless is: Liberalism IS a religion. The liberal religion 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. (Except not as pure-hearted as actual monkeys, who don’t pollute, make nukes or believe in God.)

Liberals deny, of course, that liberalism is a religion — otherwise, they’d lose their government funding. “Separation of church and state” means separation of YOUR church from the state, but total unity between their church and the state.

Two months ago, the 9th Circuit held that a school can prohibit a student from exercising his First Amendment rights by wearing a T-shirt that said “Homosexuality Is Shameful.”

Even the left’s pretend-adoration of “free speech” (meaning: treason and pornography) must give way to speech that is contrary to the tenets of the church of liberalism on the sacred grounds of a government school.

How might the ACLU respond if a school attempted to ban a T-shirt that said something like “Creationism Is Shameful”? We’d never hear the end of warnings about the coming theocracy.

In fact, students are actually required to wear “Creationism Is Shameful” T-shirts in Dover, Pa., where — thanks to a lawsuit by the ACLU — the liberal clergy have declared Darwinism the only true church, immunized from argument. Ye shall put no other God before it. Not one.

Liberals believe in Darwinism as a matter of faith, despite the fact that, at this point, the only thing that can be said for certain about Darwinism is that it would take less time for (1) a single-celled organism to evolve into a human being through mutation and natural selection than for (2) Darwinists to admit they have no proof of (1).

If only Darwinism were true, someday we might evolve public schools with the ability to entertain opposable ideas about the creation of man.

Posted Jun 07, 2006
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=15424&o=ANN001

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

22 Responses to Coulter Does NYT a Favor; Reviews Own Book

  1. Dr. Dembski, what is your personal opinion of Anne Coulter and her collective of writings?

  2. 2

    I got to thinking today about how science is becoming more corrupt, especially modern medicine, and I realized that it is related to the fact that science (scientism) is the religion of our society. I believe every society has a religion. People are in denial if they think it isn’t so. Man is a religious being. If you aren’t conscious of your religion then you are unconscious of it. No matter that a majority of Americans are Christian, science is our societal religion. And, just like the Catholic Church in days of yore, it is a monopoly. It seeks to gain and maintain top position as the only state religion. As it has almost absolute power, it has become more and more corrupt, because that’s what power does.

  3. Atheism/liberalism is indeed a religion. I can attest to this because I was once an avid devotee.

    Darwinism is this religion’s 19th-century creation myth, posing as science, despite the fact that Darwinism’s basic propositions are incoherent in light of modern science.

    Moral relativism is this religion’s moral code. But this is transparently self-refuting. Moral relativism is a truth claim about the nature of morality, which says that no truth claim about the nature of morality is valid.

    The worst part is that this nihilistic and illogical religion has been established as the State Religion by intellectuals and the judicial system. No heresy or dissent is permitted.

  4. [troll]

    You’re kidding – right? So now, since you’ve not been able to push your own religious agenda (and Dr. Dembski still owes Pat Hayes a bottle of scotch on account of the Dover decision, I am told) here’s an even more ridiculous attempt to attack people who support evolution instead of ID: Call liberalism/evolution/ non-Christianity/Any Who Think That ID Is A Weak Excuse For A Scientific Explanation a religion and pretend that there’s a First Amendment issue against people who don’t practice any religion whatsoever. Un-be-lievable.

    Come on. Is your case so weak that you can’t even refute the arguments with something more tangible than attacking the messengers? Do you think so little of your supporters’ reasoning ability that you can’t even just throw them an evidentiary bone once in awhile so that they have something – anything! – that they can assert as a premise in this argument other than “my god can beat up your god”?

    And if you’re going to hitch your wagon to Ms. Coulter’s horse, you’d better prepare for the depth and breadth of criticism that your camp has traditionally waged against Richard Dawkins. That won’t help you if what you want is for the other side to rationally consider your opinions. You do want us to consider your opinion rationally – don’t you?

    And, as this is my fourth attempt to post a response to an article on this site TODAY, I’ll assume that this is only going to be read by you, Dr. Dembski (I guess that that’s what “Comments are moderated” means). But, at the very least, could you treat me with respect and find a way to resond to this in some manner. I’d like to think that a man of your alleged stature could step up and do that.

  5. Pi Guy

    Professor Dembski isn’t the one deleting your trollish comments. That would be me. Take a hint and take a hike. Y r n sshl. :lol:

  6. Great work Dave! At least all people interested in that comment shall be forced to apply a bit of additional cognitive load to reintroduce vowels :-D

    A more serious comment. Do you think that the above text could be easily recognized as a non-random sequence of letters?

    K.

    It’s non-random? I would’ve sworn it was a small scale test of a million monkeys at a million typewriters trying to reproduce the works of Shakespeare. -ds

  7. > It’s non-random? I would’ve sworn it was a small scale test of a million
    > monkeys at a million typewriters trying to reproduce
    > the works of Shakespeare. -ds

    Right! With or without vowels, it’s the content that is pretty non-sense :-D

    K.

  8. Yep.

    As we always points out, it’s all about Complex Specified Information. ;)

  9. Does anyone know how Ms. Coulter came to know the truth about the darwin myth?

    Presumably it’s because she’s bright, well read, and not a member of the loony left. It’s mostly the last part. -ds

  10. Do you think it is wise to associate a political stance concerning ID? I dont.

    I know several people that are politically left and strong supporters of ID and PhD canidates in physics and history of science. Personally I have a hard time choosing between right, left, republican, liberal, democrat and conservative… And I think many people fit in this area and choose to make political/ethical/moral/societal decisions on a case by case basis rather than agreeing to the party line.

    ID is already associated with a political stance. Do you think it’s wise to ignore reality? I don’t. -ds

  11. Hey Kairos,

    Coulter is another fine product of Cornell, just like you and John Sanford.

    Salvador

  12. I consider myself to be theologically conservative, but politically liberal. I take offense at the sweeping and generally false statements made regarding liberals. I consider this review by Dembski to be beneath him, and I am shocked that he would stoop to such mud-slinging depths.

  13. Pardon me. It looks like the review was made by Coulter, not by Demski. I’m not surprised by Coulter’s remarks. I am surprised that Dembski would consider them worthy of reprinting.

    This might help you understand. http://www.uncommondescent.com.....hives/1071 -ds

  14. The embrace of Anne Coulter may alienate many moderate and left-leaning supporters of Intelligent Design. She is very controversial.

    The sucess of Intelligent Design will depend on the creation of a broad coalition of supporters that crosses party lines. Ms. Coulter is potentially too devisive a personality to aid the formation of such a coalition.

    I may be speaking too boldly. It sounds like Dave really likes her. She is cute-definitely babeage in my book!

    You seem to be totally ignoring Coulter’s huge following many of which are not ID supporters but will be positively influenced by her embrace of it. I think the net result is vastly in favor of ID. Certainly some of the political left will be influenced the other way but not that many. She is only controversial amost exclusively amongst those who are already Darwin worshippers. -ds

  15. Not to wander too far into politics,ds, but there are many’conservatives’ who think Coulter’s non-darwiny
    gives the left a chance to call us flat earthers. I myself favor the provocation to rethink the old myth.

    gives the left a chance to call us flat earthers

    Children will say the darndest things. Consider the source. -ds

  16. But wait—because the Left is so off the wall—shouldn’t its moderates be worried that their associations might alienate the forces of logic now being marshaled against the Left’s apostle? Gotta agree with DS.

  17. Well, Dave, Ms. Coulter will certainly add spark and color to our movement! :)

    Just to put this in perspective, if Hillary Clinton came out in favor of ID, I’d be happy about that too. But what are the odds? -ds

  18. Since I am politically liberal, and since I think ID is probably true, we can conclude that ID is politically neutral. The fact that Coulter, Dembski, Discovery Institute, and Dave Scott insist that ID is politically conservative shows that they are hopelessly confused. Unfortunately, since those who think ID is probably not true depend upon the above named parties for their understanding of ID, they will conclude that ID is just a politcal/religious movement, and attack it with renewed vigor. So by insisting on wedding ID to a politcal/ religious stance, these supporters of ID are doing it great harm.

    You misunderstand. ID is politically neutral. The people who are for and against it are not politically neutral and as it happens the greater support for it comes from the conservative side of the political spectrum and the attacks on it come predominantly from the liberal side. I didn’t make these associations. That’s just the way it is. -ds

  19. If you are liberal and support ID then you will be lonely amongst your fellow travelers. Last summer when I was at a friend’s house, his very liberal friend brought up out of the clear blue that McCain has decided to become very conservative. Out of curiosity I asked him what he meant and he replied that McCain just endorsed Bush’s comment to teach the controversy about ID. Evolution was not part of the conversation till he brought it up and he was eager to make what he thought were some one sided points favoring liberal postions. The group of 8 people were half liberal and half conservative and an ugly process started with all the liberals making unflattering comments about those who don’t accept Darwin.

    To know that ID is not viewed as politically neutral just look around. What are some of the most politically left elements of our society? Academia, Media, Entertainment, Activist groups such as the ACLU, elements of the Democrat party. How many of each has supported ID? What is the general attitude of each of these groups on this issue?

    Has anybody read the total body of op-eds published by the NY Times on this issue? For every pro-ID editorial there are 10 against, nearly all disingenuous nonsense. Has there been a prominent Democrat politician that has supported the teaching of ID? Not if they want to win their nomination.

    Anyone who doesn’t think this is a political issues of liberal vs. conservative has their head in the sand or like the editorials of the NY Times is disingenuous. Certainly it is not 100% black and white liberal vs. conservative but those shades of gray are either very light or very dark.

    If you are pro ID and consider yourself liberal, test out the waters with your liberal friends and see how they react to a pro ID discussion.

  20. First, a good many conservatives oppose the teaching of ID in public schools. Judge Jones, a Republican, does. Michael Ruse, who called himself a conservative when I heard him speak, does.

    ID is seen by most people as being a thinly disguised version of Creationism, decked out in neutral, scientific language to pose as a legitimate scientific theory. So I would expect most thinking people, liberal or conservative, to eye its teaching in public schools with a good deal of suspicion.

    You expect wrong.

    Harris Poll. June 17-21, 2005. N=1,000 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

    “Regardless of what you may personally believe, which of these do you believe should be taught in public schools?

    Evolution only 12
    Creationism only 23
    Intelligent design only 4
    All three 55
    None of these (vol.) 3
    Unsure 3

    Any questions? -ds

    And when ds writes, “ID is already associated with a political stance. Do you think it’s wise to ignore reality? I don’t,” that just adds fuel to the fire. It confirms to liberals that ID is nothing more than a politcal/religious issue, sponsored by the political conservative and religious right.

    If you want to insist on wedding ID to that movement, go ahead. But don’t expect the rest of society to still take ID seriously.

    If you follow my advice, you’ll distance yourself from all politcal and religious movements, and present ID as a scientific issue, that should be debated by scientists and academics at the college level.

    BTW, did Coulter mean to be taken literally when she said that students in Dover are required to where “Creationism is Shameful” t-shirts?

  21. Bilbo,

    You must be new here because just about everything you said does not make sense if you have read a lot of the things discussed here.

    Personally, I don’t believe every judge appointed by Bush is a conservative and even if Judge Jones has good conservative credentials we can discuss the nonsense in his decision. It is available in lots of places. Stupidity can reside anywhere on the political spectrum. Are you defending Jones’s ruling based on his logic and his fair interpretation of the evidence presented? You should read the evidence and how he interpreted it.

    I know nothing about Michael Ruse except in one debate all he did is accuse the ID side of introducing religion into the discussion when in fact he was the one doing it and on top of this had nothing to say about Darwinism except that it was so overwhelming accepted. If he is a conservative then he is disingenuous one too. One side does not have a monopoly on brains or stupidity.

    There are lots of conservatives who defend Darwinism. See the reactions to Bush’s remarks last summer. Many conservatives were horrified he made the statement. I know no prominent liberals who support ID so maybe you could point some out. By the way it tends to be liberals who force the association with a political movement not the ID people. You are operating under too many stereotypes.

    There are lots of people here defending ID who are not creationists and if the discussion ever gets down to religion there could be some horrendous arguments going on. Your comment on how most people understand ID is one fostered by the liberal press. They rarely print the truth about it. It is not ID that fosters the creationist religious connection but the Darwinists. One of the comments about Darwinists is that as soon as the argument is not going their way that they immediately play the religion card as an ad hominen attack.

    ID will never be debated seriously by academics at the college level. Anyone supporting ID and who does not have tenure will be denied it and if they have tenure they may be ostracized. There are several examples to back this up and the fact that you propose it means you are unaware of what is going on.

    Ann Coulter, to use an expression of my day, likes to yank liberal’s chains with outlandish statements but which usually have a semblance of truth in it. But I doubt the t-shirt comment is true but only meant as sarcasm. She is selling books but if she didn’t have a message that was pretty much correct she wouldn’t sell too many of them. She is not Alexander Pope but she can certainly drive the dagger home better than anyone else on today’s stage but only because there is mainly truth in what she says. Yes she is over the top but she has an amazing pen. Currently she is #1 on Amazon so she is doing her job very well but this sales position will change shortly.

    If you want to look for liberal writers who also have acid pens read the NY Times for Maureen Dowd and Frank Rich. The main difference is the amount of fiction and distortion they have to use in their writings to make others look bad.

  22. I consider myself liberal, a strong ID supporter, and I think Coulter is a looney moron.

Leave a Reply