Critique of Ann Coulter's The Church of Liberalism: Godless

I just finished her latest book today as a matter of fact, and of course, it was hilarious, as is the rest of her books. I realize that EvC is utterly innundated with those of a more liberal persuation, and by default, they hate her guts. But the woman can write. And no matter whether or not you agree with her particular brand of political affiliations, grant her that much.I somehow glanced over this this little tidbit, but when I read it, I couldn't help but to laugh out loud."Another Abortion Party candidtae for president in 2004 was Howard Dean, a former medical resident with Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider in the United States. During a January 15, 2004, conference call with reporters, Dean, being a raving lunatic, said, 'No doctor is going to do an abortion on a live fetus. That doesn't happen. Doctors don't do that. If they do, they'll get their license pulled, as well they should.' (Yes, you're reading that correctly.)" -Ann Coulter (Godless p.86-87)M'kayyyyyyyyyy. I'm beginning to understand why Kerry beat him out.Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : Edit to add

To be impartial, I notice that many of her arguments in the new book seems to have a twinge of similarity from another kick-ass book, "Hoodwinked," by Jack Cashill. However, conservative arguments and liberal arguments are always a rehash on any given hot topic that helps to support their view. In fact, there is not a single original argument. This isn't plagiarism though. If it were, then Michael Moore has plagiarized someone else. In fact, according Cashill's book, even Martin Luther King's most famous speech and the author of "Roots," plagiarized in true fashion.By your version of plagiarism, we are all plagiarizing someone else right now. That just isn't the case. Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : typo

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15

Being that she backs up everything she states and quotes with sources, I don't think you can honestly say that she makes "outrageous claims." She does her homework because she knows that people are going to dig as deep as they possibly can in order to refute her. She dots her "i's" and crosses her "t's" out of necessity. Any good writer, which she is, does. Thanks for the visual... Perhaps you could have used another analogy...? Sheesh! You want to legislate free speech? Does that entail curbing people's destructively childish penchant for burning flags as a form of free speech? I'm not interested in living in a Gulag-like society, so I'll prefer free speech, however, inane it might be (*see Michael Moore as a referrence*), over legislating free speech. This is precisely what she was arriving at. Liberals only want free speech when it rules in their favor. That isn't in any way, free. Straight from the horses mouth, and yet you object to this line of thought? Atheists and heathens come in all different shapes and sizes. For the most part, Liberalism is theologically at odds with Christianity. I mean, who are you referring to precisely? Episcopals, Methodists, or Presbyterians? Its not that a Neocon can't concieve of the effects of pollution, as much as liberals tend to put this Malthusian conspiracy higher on the totem than other aspects that might logically set precedence over the coveted virtue of recycling. Did you read her piece on abortion and eugenics? No, they respect ALL religions EXCEPT Christianity. Question:1. Do you believe that evolution is a natural occurance that can be verified by scientific scrutiny?
2. Do you believe that homosexuals are born with an innate sense of sexual attraction to the same sex?
3. Do you feel that child molesters should be rehabilitated or punished like any other crime?
4. Do you think recycling is a good thing?
5. Do you believe that "waiting before marriage to engage in sexual activity" is an archaic and antiquated aspect of sociology?Please answer honestly. she asks this logical question because the prevailing theory concerning homosexuality and the prevailing wisdom concerning the ToE conflict. You couldn't possibly believe that and still call yourself an intellectual. She's only repeating what God has made clear in His Word. She realizes that people object to God's Law, and the very notion of God, itself. But some things are true whether we want it to be or not. Coulter feels that the homosexual movement, as a whole, is more focused on sex than it is about anything else. Her argument attempts to show that homosexuality is an aberration. And by this simple, "Who cares" philosophy, we might as well eradicate any problem with pedophilia and/or beastiality. Who cares, right? I do. Child molesters can change. They really can. Her objection is with the some liberal ideology that they need to be coddled instead of thrown into prison for potentially destroying a child's pysche. This is where the objection lies. Dear God, almighty! You are exactly who she is referencing. "Loving" children and associating children in any kind of sexual way is your first problem. Sexuality and love are mutually exclusive. If you don't believe me, then maybe you don't "love" your grandparents. I love my kids. I love kids in general. That in no way means that I feel sexually attracted to children. LOL! That has a terminology too.... They're called, "Stalkers," and its a crime in most states. Wow, stay away from my kids. Having sex with children is rape, even with consent. And to further elucidate the point, what difference is their in desire and action? Not much. All it takes is for opportunity to arise. And people that search for children, so they can "watch them from a distance," is like placing a gambler in a casino and telling them not to gamble. Its moronic. That's called satire. Her books are littered with it. Ann isn't against recycling or the enviornment. She's essentially saying, "Pull your head out of your ass and get your priorities straightened. If liberals cared as much as they do over abortion as they do over recycling, we'd have a pretty good society." Again, its not her demonizing recycling. I'm sure she recycles. Its about priorities being all out of whack. "Anorexic hypocrite?" She's anorexic because she has a nice figure or because she's a real anorexic, which I would have assumed you thought to be a real disorder. And everyone is a hypocrite. Knowing it half the battle. That's where Jesus comes in.Admins, I sincerely hope that this goes into a forum other than the book nook so people can discuss and debate. I'll leave it to you to decide where this will go.

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15

First, your personal experience bears no relevance to the topic of this thread. You could say whatever you wished to illicit sympathy for your cause, as could I.Second, I was not making a sweeping generalization, nor was I saying that Episcopalians, Presbyterians, or other flavors of Christianity are flawed. My first and fundamental point is that liberals do not tend to be Christian. Calling yourself a Christian and attending Church on Easter Sunday and for Christmas Eve doesn't make you a Christian.Liberalism and Christianity are so diametrically opposed it is almost laughable that a person could claim to be both. Any Bible scholar could tell you that the tenets of liberalism contrast drastically to the teachings of Jesus Christ. Just read the gospels if you do not believe me.1. You cannot believe that the environment and animals have intrinsically higher value than human beings do and call yourself a Christian. God put us at the top of the food chain.2. You cannot find the torture and subsequent murder of an innocent, unborn child a socially acceptable practice and call yourself a Christian. God commanded us not to murder each other.3. You cannot worship money, self, debauchery, or anything else more than God and call yourself a Christian. God commands us to have NO OTHER GODS BEFORE HIM. This is a theme throughout the Bible. Anyone that claims otherwise has not studied it.I could go on and on regarding the moral differences between Christian tenets and Liberal tenets, but I think you catch my drift. I was attacking liberalism. When it comes to Christians that are not obeying God's word, I rebuke and educate gently, just as Christ instructed. I follow the idealogy of Christ. Those that do not cannot claim to be Christians, by any stretch of the imagination.

Pray tell, how was Jesus a liberal, by modern definition ?

[quote]I was not making a sweeping generalization[quote]

quote:

---

My first and fundamental point is that liberals do not tend to be Christian.

---

It should come as no surprise that the majority of Christians have a more conservative point of view. Is that the rule? Absolutely not. There are Christians who are Democrats, and maybe even are apart of the Green Party. But I have not the ability to dictate where which party will go. I only can make observations on it.

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15

I've never really liked Limbaugh. But Ann, come on, she's funny. As far as modern liberalism, there is a difference between old liberals and new. Old liberals, or Classic Liberals, still had their wits about them. But this modern liberalism is, at the core, opposed to Democracy, which makes me wonder why they call themselves Democrats. They want Socialism. They want to be Socialists. They want to hand over half of their paycheck to government run institutions so that they can be 234th on the waiting list to be seen by a doctor.

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15

The only one who has a problem with Ann are those out to malign her. What will they think of next? Aside from the obvious, which is, conjecure is baseless without the actual text that was plagiarized. Do you have any links that actually give any specifics? So far, all I saw on those blogs, those blogs of a leftists persuasion, claim that she plagiarized. But I didn't see any specifics.

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15

Well, I have the book right in front of me. And her notes and index contain a long list of sources. They are as follows:Chapter 1: 24 references
Chapter 2: 48 references
Chapter 3: 8 references
Chapter 4: 25 references
Chapter 5: 57 references
Chapter 6: 33 references
Chapter 7: 59 references
Chapter 8: 30 references
Chapter 9: 11 references
Chapter 10: 24 references
Chapter 11: 25 referencesLike I said, she does her homework. Someobody like Ann doesn't have the luxury of just blurting out some asinine assertion aout this or that. And if her work is "sensational," then so is the Washington, LA, and New York Times, who paint pictures that don't exist. They don't report news, which is, ahem, their job, they make news. And Coulter exposes it for what it really is. What errors? Anything you don't like is an "error?" What is your definition of an error? Well, lets put it this way. If I referred to myself as an Asian man, even though I was clearly a black female, would my testimony about what I call myself be true? A liberalized church tends to be a compromising church that compromises doctrines. That's just thenature of it. Its the pick and choose gospel, rather than the actual gospel for many people. My point was clear. I doubt that highly. I was asking for your personal opinion on evolution. I already know that the evidence says. Again, your personal opinion is required here, not a dissertation. Amen. I agree fully. Both. Amen. I recylce everything that is recylclable. Nothing wrong with it whatsoever. Again, to get the point across, Ann mentions it because it seems to take precedence over more pressing matters. You don't need to be a sociologist to recognize whether something might or might not have an adverse effect. But yes, sex before marriage is comes down to a matter of freewill. Being that I've never seen you on any of the Biological Evolution threads, a thread that I frequent, you are currently not qualified to base your opinion on my level of expertise on a mere hunch. Feel free to engage my arguments from now on. Okay, well I appreciate your honesty. Only if you can first explain to me why over 50% of homosexuals have had over 1,000 lifetime partners. I just typed "gay" in a search engine. The very first thing that popped up were immediately references to sex. Go Porno Pete, go! Its ravishing!Page Not Found - Los Angeles LGBT Center You haven't come to a conclusion about beastiality yet? What conclusion is their to draw other than its insanity? And see, this is exactly what we knew was going to happen. First is the inculcation of homosexuality. then pedophilia, then beastiality. Its called an reductio ad absurdum argument. There is nothing more to conclude. No, but apparently it does for you. Nice try turning around your penchant for little kids on me. Just answer the question without a question. Do you have sexually feelings for children and/or animals? Are you a member of NAMbLA, NAWbLA, NAMgLA, or NAWbLA?"Freedom is indivisible. The liberation of children, women, boy-lovers, and homosexuals in general, can occur only as complementary facets of the same dream." -David ThorstadThe sexual "emancipation" of children is their stated aim. How do you feel about this? Stalking - WikipediaUh, tracking down little boys and little girls and watching them is stalking. If you don't believe me, ante up and tell their parents what you've been doing and see how they react. "Oh sure dude, no problem. I don't care that you find my children sexually atractive. Wanna come over later for tea and cookies?"Statutory rape - Wikipedia Well, if you can't even pick up on obvious satire then I doubt you are qualified to make any kind up claim about her being sensationalisitic, as if she makes few valid points. Again, all of hers are backed up, checked, double and triple checked by editors. No one would dare put out that information without ensuring that it was accurate..... for this very reason. Well, you said that she uses ad hominem in her book. So, if you use ad hom then it cancels out your claim. I mean, I understand that you're heated about it. We get a little heated and sometimes say things that we shouldn't. But if we want to start grandstanding, then we have to do it without looking like giant hypocrites. I don't really think she's butt ugly or gorgeous. I actually could care less. I'm only interested in her mind.

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15

The love I feel for more my wife IS exclusive to the sexual attraction I feel for her. So, is this your tacit way of saying that you'd like to have sex with your grandfather?

So you agree with the premise of eugenics? Just kill the undesirables so "we," the ones who weren't slaughtered get to decide who lives and who dies???? Far be it from me to belabor the obvious, but if everyone respected their own sexuality, there would't be millions of crack babies or millions more kids with teenage mothers, now would there? Its called, "adoption." For as many 'unwanted' children there are, there are many couples who can't concieve. they'd be more than willing to take the child from you. So what's the problem? The parent is absolved of any 'unwanted' responsibility... (God forbid that there shoul be concsequences for bad choices); the child stays alive, and the adopting parents get their bundle of joy.... What's the problem?Now that sounds like a society that honors life. Sounds pretty good and civilized to me.

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15

Being that Reagan respected the Beatitudes and liberals don't, you aren't in the position to try to compare an economic pattern with a moral instruction.

Oh, you didn't say that? Then let me flat out ask you.Do you agree that abortion for any reason should be the choice of the concieving mother?

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15

If love and sex are not mutually exclusive, then if you find yourself checking out a guy at the bar and are sexually attracted to him, then you love him, byt your standard definition. As well, if love and sexuality aren't mutually exclusive, then if you love your grandmother, then you also feel sexually attracted to her.I never said that the two can't meet in the middle, as in a married couple having sex who also love each other. But emotion does not encompass love. This is what I'm trying to distinguish.Does that make more sense?

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15

LOL! Because you have to go through legal channels to adopt a child, not, ahem, stand outside an abortion clinic with a sign, "I want your baby." And the mysterious families who can't concieve children are everywhere. In fact, prior to meeting my wife, she had a child out of wedlock and felt that it was best for her daughter that she go to a lobing family. My wife had to choose from several different families, all seeking to have children themselves. What an absurd comment, as if it somehow justifies infanticide. "Where are the mysterious families who want children but can't have them?"Approximately 127,000 people annually adopt children on average in the United States alone; this according to factual statistics. Those are mystery families you speak of. As well, there are many more still in the process of seeking to adopt andmany others who are still trying to concieve naturaly, but haven't come to the conclusion that they simply cannot for whatever medical reason. Those are you mystery families.Po Bronson's Books, Articles, Stories, Scripts, and Projects I guess we can take it a step further by saying that name-calling down at the abortion clinics wouldn't exist, if, 1. abortion clinics didin't exist, and, 2. That if mothers, you know, wouldn't kill their kids. I don't know, maybe I'm just bizarre for thinking that way.

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15