For those who haven't been paying attention, Ann Coulter has a new book out. It's called "GODLESS, The Church of Liberalism". And it has caused quite an uproar, not just in the Liberal community as expected, but many Conservatives have found it objectionable, as well.
The reason for the concern? One simple sentence. You've heard it. She wrote:"I've never seen people enjoying their husband's death so much."
Well, of course this statement is objectionable, and insensitive. Let me put it in context. The entire paragraph reads:
"After getting their payments (the original $1.6 million average settlement paid to 9/11 victims families was not large enough) jacked up, the weeping widows took to the airwaves to denounce George Bush, apparently for not beaming himself through space from Florida to New York and throwing himself in front of the second building at the World Trade center. These self-obsessed 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. But they believed the entire country was required to marinate in their exquisite personal agony. Apparently, denouncing Bush was an important part of their closure process. These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and 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."
Let me comment on this paragraph.
For one thing, yes, I can believe that the widows believed the entire country were required to feel sorry for them. Many people have the need to share their grief with others, and yes, it does indeed help in the grieving process and does often bring about closure. I myself, am the type that needs to share my feelings with people in order to get myself through difficult times.
Yes, the last sentence was highly insensitive, and should have been left out of the book, or at least rephrased to be less inflammatory.
I don't know how well Ms. Coulter knows the "Jersey Girls", but I think it's safe to say she doesn't know what they are thinking. Or what they may have been feeling. Certainly on the surface they appear to be very much exactly what Ann says they are. At least in the way they have promoted themselves and their agenda.
Here is another take on the last sentence:
As much as we want to believe this is not possible, there exists, throughout this country, women who don't love their husbands. Women who wish their husbands would just curl up and die. Women who have so much hatred for their husbands, that if their husband met a tragic sudden death, they would be ecstatic. Add a multi-million dollar settlement to the mix, and that ecstasy is compounded.
I know women who have that kind of hate for their husbands.
There are a myriad of reasons for this hatred. Maybe their husbands abuse them. Physically or verbally. Maybe their husbands neglect them. Maybe their husbands have become so boring and humdrum, they no longer feel any love for them. Maybe their husbands are so obsessed on making as much money as they possibly can, that they have placed their wives in second place.
Who knows?
Of course, If Ann Coulter can say categorically, that these women are among these husband haters, she can't be faulted for her statement. However, I don't believe there is any way she could know that for sure, unless they have personally told her. And that is hardly likely, given the fact that they don't exactly attend the same garden club.
I said all that to say this:
Don't let one objectionable statement color your objectivity when reading this book.
It is a book that makes the Liberals angry, but not because of that one statement. As in Ann Coulter's other books, the thing that Liberals really object to, is the fact that she is absolutely correct in her assessment of Liberals. Not all Liberals, but certainly the most radical of them.
In the first paragraph of the book, Ann makes the statement that "Liberals love to boast that they are not "religious". That is not true. Not even close. Most Liberals I know are self-proclaimed God fearing Christians.
Most, in my opinion, have a strange interpretation of what Christians should believe (for instance: the idea that abortion is somehow not murder), but I believe they usually have the fundamentals correct. And that is enough to insure them a place in Heaven.
For you Conservatives and true Moderates, I recommend "Godless" highly. Ann Coulter can be acidic, and bitingly sarcastic, but she is right.
Absolutely right.
21 comments:
Mark,
I have two of her books, but was only able to read one of them. They are a bit acidic and I felt the entire time I was reading 'Treason,' I was mad at the liberals. I don't like being that mad at them all the time.
Yet, I would like to read it to see how close to theological truth she comes... I'm beginning to believe that those who are liberal Christians, truly are not. I know, two different arenas. But what I see from those who claim to be Christian, yet don't hold to the Bible the way the evil fundamentalist do, is a call for holiness on any level. To mention the word at all, is to bring down the wrath of legalism. Yes, what does the Scripture call us to be if not holy?
And then there is alway the charge: well, if you don't burn homosexuals at the stake then you are not truly believing in the Bible. Which is a trap not worth falling into. The person making that charge does not understand God, the Bible or theology. and quite frankly, not worth casting pearls before them...
Blessings
Ann is inflammatory and provocative, but I believe the First Amendment applies even to her. If she has been libelous, I’m sure that will be exploited; however, I doubt Ann will cross that line. I don’t like a lot of things socialists/liberals say and write, but within small confines they like everyone else have a right to say what they desire.
My Wife has a copy of that very book in her hot little hands right now. (So I can't read it quite yet...)
It's absolutely great, from the few passages I have read so far.
My Wife is laughing her head off reading it.
If that sentence had not appeared in the book, liberals would have directed their phony outrage at something else. Every page has a doozy on it. Let me turn randomly to a page -- 199. "If you want something that complicates a belief in God, try coming to terms with Michael Moore being one of God's special creatures." Ann believes in evolution about the same as I believe a liberal can be offended. How can you be offended by any outrage, any atrocity, when you defend the murder in this country alone of 1.5 million babies a year? Defending slavery, defending segregation, defending abortion, the Democratic party has a profound disrespect for human life that has been with them since their party was created.
You claim that Ann Coulter "is right" and "absolutely correct in her assessment of liberals," and then you admit the very first paragraph contains a lie, in your words, "That is not true. Not even close." Is what Coulter says a lie ONLY if you personally observe proof to the contrary?
Why do you read a book that begins with what you positively know is a lie? How can you admit that it is a lie and then accept that everything else in the book is true?
In the real world, a difference of opinion is not a lie. A mistake is not a lie. But that's just in the real world, not in Liberal Land.
You can call yourself a Christian if you want, but if you support abortion, you are not. Simple.
Mark, I was waiting to hear some actual reviews from a conservative and I appreciate reading yours. Thanks for sharing it.
When I was talking about this book on my blog a fellow blogger made a great point. Ann purposely says controversial things to get you to pay attention to her points. She freely admits she doesn't write them in a way to persuade liberals. She's making points and providing comic relief for conservatives who are tired of being attacked day and night in the MSM. You finally feel like you've got a response to their myriad attacks.
The left would like to dismiss her as a shock jock like Howard Stern who would say anything to sell books,etc. They say this also about Rush but it isn't true. Both Ann and Rush have core principles that motivate them to say what they believe with humor and without worrying about being politically correct. And I for one find it extremely refreshing in this PC society.
Would I say things exactly the way Ann does? No, but she speaks the truth and makes her points. I for one will defend her to the enth degree and find her to be a breath of fresh air. I am immensely enjoying her book.
Mark I would have to disagree with you about most liberals claiming to be religious. I know some who obviously define Christianity much different than I but I think she's right about most liberals rejecting God. When I make phonecalls for the Republican party if someone doesn't go to church more often than not its a sure sign that they are a liberal.
Ranger,
The statement in question is:
"Liberals love to boast that they are not "religious"."
This is not an opinion. It is an assertion of fact. And as such, it is false, and therefore a lie. Mark says it's not true. I agree and so will every liberal I know or have ever heard of. I've never heard of any liberal boasting that they are not religious.
It is a lie.
Jim you failed to grasp one simple fact. Yes, I said Ann Coulter is absolutely correct in her assessment of Liberals, but I also said, "Not all Liberals, but certainly the most radical of them".
Yes, there are many who consider them selves Christian and many who are Christian, but there are also many who say, just as Ann said, that they are not religious.
When was the last time you met a Conservative Christian that thinks it's ok to intentionally murder babies?
Bill Maher, one of your most revered Liberal spokesmen, once said he knows "abortion is murder, but so what?" He certainly doesn't claim to be religious.
Apparently Ann and I travel in a different circle of liberals than you and Mark do. The librerals I know and work with surely do love to boast that they are not religious. They claim to be "spiritual," whatever that means. They believe in Casper the Friendly Ghost? You are using the old liberal dodge of denying something if you have not experienced it. Alan Colmes uses that a lot. "I haven't heard that." I didn't read that." I don't know about that." Therefore, it can't be brought into the debate. You also confuse a conviction with a statement of fact. That also is not a lie. Liberals believe that higher taxes will lead to a stronger economy. That's their conviction. It's wrong, but it's not a lie unless the liberal knows it's not true.
OK, Mark, just for you I present the dictionary definition of "murder":
The unlawful killing of one human by another.
Since in all states but South Dakota, abortion is legal, having an abortion is by definition not murder. You can call it murder all you want, but every time you do that would be false.
Bill Maher is not an official spokesperson of any group or religion that I know of, so I could give a fig what he thinks is murder or how religious he is.
Coulter didn't say "some liberals" or the "most radical liberals", she said "liberals". And she said liberals "boast". I've never heard once of a liberal "boasting" about their religion or lack of same. I've only heard "some" conservative Christians "boast" of their religion.
So there is nothing here that I fail to grasp. Coulter is a liar.
You said, "I also said, "Not all Liberals, but certainly the most radical of them"." That is fine, but Coulter doesn't say "the most radical of them", she says liberals.
It would be the same as if I said conservative Christians viciously protest at the funerals of soldiers killed in the Iraq war and at high school graduations. The clear implication in this sentence is that the characterization applies to all conservative Christians just as Coulter's clear implication is that her characterizations apply to all liberals. Both are absurd, and both are false.
The difference is that mine is an example of her absurdity and hers is accepted by you as righteous truth.
It is to laugh.
"Not all Liberals, but certainly the most radical of them [are irreligious/godless]".
But I'm one of the more radical types and I fully embrace my faith. In fact, I'm radical BECAUSE of my faith. Or do you not perceive me to be radical?
"When was the last time you met a Conservative Christian that thinks it's ok to intentionally murder babies?"
I've addressed this already, but I'll point out again that many conservative Christians thought it was okay to intentionally murder the babies of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
You probably shouldn't bring that argument back up, or at least rephrase it to say "abortion" instead of "intentionally murder babies," because the statement is just wrong in its suggestion.
And finally, you said:
"It is a book that makes the Liberals angry"
None that I know of. My circle of friends, church brothers and sisters, liberals all, could care less what Coulter says. I have no idea what she says in her book beyond what I have read in a handful of places such as here.
You have to care what someone says before you can actually get angry about it.
“The unlawful killing of one human by another.”
Here is another definition of murder found also in Webster: ”to kill or slaughter barbarously.”
What could be more barbarous than the slaughter of an infant human being in his/her mother’s womb? What “do process” (Fifth Amendment) was exercised to deprive an infant of its life? To wit: it’s “murder”, plain and simple. It is the extinguishing of a human life without do process.
All the liberal double speak in the world cannot change the facts of the matter. Abortion is (by definition) murder.
As I've stated before, I'm not an abortion supporter. I'm pro-life.
That doesn't change the fact that Mark's statement is wrong. Some conservatives DO in fact, think it is okay to murder innocent babies under the right circumstances. They don't revel in it or enjoy it and would rather not, but they do it just the same and those babies are just as dead (and dismembered) as aborted babies.
And, legally speaking, right now abortion is NOT murder but a medical procedure. Y'all can't just use words without regards to their meanings (well, actually you can and do, but it really weakens your arguments).
The atomic bombs were dropped on Japan by a DEMOCRAT! Let me just quote Republican Herbert Hoover after the bomb was dropped. August 8, 1945: "The use of the atomic bomb, with its indiscriminate killing of women and children, revolts my soul."
Democrats continually try to smear Republicans with their crimes against humanity. It wasn't Democrats who were for slavery, it was America, it wasn't Democrats who were segregationists, it was American. It wasn't Democrats who herded Japanese Americans into concentration camps, it was America. Don't you people ever get tired of being evil?
Two things. Dan, how can you use semantics to bolster your argument when you are as guilty or more guilty?
"right now abortion is NOT murder but a medical procedure. Y'all can't just use words without regards to their meanings"
Abortion is murder. Not a "choice". Not a "medical procedure". When you kill a child, that is NOT a medical procedure. Medical procedures are meant to SAVE lives, not KILL them. You use semantics more than anyone. Don't EVEN go there!
And comparing the accidental killing of babies in the middle of a war to the intentional, pre-mediatated, cold blooded, murder of an infant still in the womb because a selfish woman wants to continue a destructive promiscuous lifestyle without accountability is disengenuous and hypocritical.
And the sad fact is you very well know that, Dan. You are so indoctrinated into the religion of Godless Liberalism you deny the facts that stare you in the face.
How pathetic you are!
"You are so indoctrinated into the religion of Godless Liberalism"
Got here by way of the Bible. Take it up with God.
"And comparing the accidental killing of babies"
Accidental? Did Truman et al think perhaps the babies in Nagasaki would be spared? THAT would be one smart bomb.
Yes, LR. A democratic president dropped The Bomb. Won't you join me in condenming him? Truman committed war crimes. A democrat committed war crimes. Say it along with me, y'all.
Unlike many Republicans (and Dems), I'm quite glad to criticize the party with which I'm registered when they're in the wrong. (I don't really consider myself a Dem, I'm Green, but current laws keep it near impossible for Greens and Libertarians to win elections).
Old Soldier said,
"What “do[sic] process” (Fifth Amendment) was exercised to deprive an infant of its life? To wit: it’s “murder”, plain and simple. It is the extinguishing of a human life without do[sic] process."
All due process is given in every case of legal abortion. US law does not recognize a fetus as a person with rights to due process. Abortions are legal.
You liberals are just proving the point of Ann's book -- that you are godless and have no moral core. Slavery used to be legal (thanks to Democrats) but that doesn't mean it was ever right. You're saying that a day before the Roe v Wade decision abortion was murder and a day after it wasn't? I personally would prefer a just God over judges and politicians telling me what's moral and what isn't. At least God doesn't tell me how much water I should have in my toilet tank, How fast I can drive and whether I should wear a helmet. Compared to these liberal politicos, the God of the Old Testament looks pretty - you should excuse the expression - liberal to me. If you weren't godless, the life and death of unborn babies would not be just more grist for your pseudo-intellectual debates. I repeat, don't you people ever get tired of being evil?
Post a Comment