Godless: The Church of Liberalism and over one million other books are available for Amazon Kindle. Learn more

Vous voulez voir cette page en français ? Cliquez ici.


or
Sign in to turn on 1-Click ordering.
or
Amazon Prime Free Trial required. Sign up when you check out. Learn More
More Buying Choices
Have one to sell? Sell yours here
Start reading Godless: The Church of Liberalism on your Kindle in under a minute.

Don't have a Kindle? Get your Kindle here, or download a FREE Kindle Reading App.

Godless: The Church of Liberalism [Hardcover]

Ann Coulter
2.8 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (12 customer reviews)
List Price: CDN$ 36.95
Price: CDN$ 23.28 & eligible for FREE Super Saver Shipping on orders over CDN$ 25. Details
You Save: CDN$ 13.67 (37%)
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
Only 1 left in stock (more on the way).
Ships from and sold by Amazon.ca. Gift-wrap available.
Want it delivered Wednesday, May 22? Choose One-Day Shipping at checkout.

Formats

Amazon Price New from Used from
Kindle Edition --  
Hardcover CDN $23.28  
Paperback CDN $14.40  
Audio, CD, Abridged, Audiobook CDN $14.56  

Book Description

Jun 6 2006
"If a martian landed in America and set out to determine the nation's official state religion, he would have to conclude it is liberalism, while Christianity and Judaism are prohibited by law.

Many Americans are outraged by liberal hostility to traditional religion. But as Ann Coulter reveals in this, her most explosive book yet, to focus solely on the Left's attacks on our Judeo-Christian tradition is to miss a larger point: liberalism is a religion—a godless one.

And it is now entrenched as the state religion of this county.

Though liberalism rejects the idea of God and reviles people of faith, it bears all the attributes of a religion. In Godless, Coulter throws open the doors of the Church of Liberalism, showing us its sacraments (abortion), its holy writ (Roe v. Wade), its martyrs (from Soviet spy Alger Hiss to cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal), its clergy (public school teachers), its churches (government schools, where prayer is prohibited but condoms are free), its doctrine of infallibility (as manifest in the "absolute moral authority" of spokesmen from Cindy Sheehan to Max Cleland), and its cosmology (in which mankind is an inconsequential accident).

Then, of course, there's the liberal creation myth: Charles Darwin's theory of evolution.

For liberals, evolution is the touchstone that separates the enlightened from the benighted. But Coulter neatly reverses the pretense that liberals are rationalists guided by the ideals of free inquiry and the scientific method. She exposes the essential truth about Darwinian evolution that liberals refuse to confront: it is bogus science.

Writing with a keen appreciation for genuine science, Coulter reveals that the so-called gaps in the theory of evolution are all there is—Darwinism is nothing but a gap. After 150 years of dedicated searching into the fossil record, evolution's proponents have failed utterly to substantiate its claims. And a long line of supposed evidence, from the infamous Piltdown Man to the "evolving" peppered moths of England, has been exposed as hoaxes. Still, liberals treat those who question evolution as religious heretics and prohibit students from hearing about real science when it contradicts Darwinism. And these are the people who say they want to keep faith out of the classroom?

Liberals' absolute devotion to Darwinism, Coulter shows, has nothing to do with evolution's scientific validity and everything to do with its refusal to admit the possibility of God as a guiding force. They will brook no challenges to the official religion.

Fearlessly confronting the high priests of the Church of Liberalism and ringing with Coulter's razor-sharp wit, Godless is the most important and riveting book yet from one of today's most lively and impassioned conservative voices.


"Liberals love to boast that they are not 'religious,' which is what one would expect to hear from the state-sanctioned religion. Of course 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. In other words, liberalism contains all the attributes of what is generally known as 'religion.'" —From Godless


Product Details


Product Description

About the Author

Ann Coulter is the author of five New York Times bestsellers, including How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must), Treason, Slander, and High Crimes and Misdemeanors. --This text refers to the Paperback edition.

Excerpt. © Reprinted by permission. All rights reserved.

Chapter 1: On the Seventh Day, God Rested and Liberals Schemed

Liberals love to boast that they are not “religious,” which is what one would expect to hear from the state-sanctioned religion. Of course 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. In other words, liberalism contains all the attributes of what is generally known as “religion.”

Under the guise of not favoring religion, liberals favor one cosmology over another and demand total indoctrination into theirs. The state religion of liberalism demands obeisance (to the National Organization for Women), tithing (to teachers’ unions), reverence (for abortion), and formulaic imprecations (“Bush lied, kids died!” “Keep your laws off my body!” “Arms for hostages!”). Everyone is taxed to support indoctrination into the state religion through the public schools, where innocent children are taught a specific belief system, rather than, say, math.

Liberal doctrines are less scientifically provable than the story of Noah’s ark, but their belief system is taught as fact in government schools, while the Biblical belief system is banned from government schools by law. As a matter of faith, liberals believe: Darwinism is a fact, people are born gay, child-molesters can be rehabilitated, recycling is a virtue, and chastity is not. If people are born gay, why hasn’t Darwinism weeded out people who don’t reproduce? (For that, we need a theory of survival of the most fabulous.) And if gays can’t change, why do liberals think child-molesters can? Pedophilia is a sexual preference. If they’re born that way, instead of rehabilitation, how about keeping them locked up? Why must children be taught that recycling is the only answer? Why aren’t we teaching children “safe littering”?

We aren’t allowed to ask. Believers in the liberal faith might turn violent—much like the practitioners of Islam, the Religion of Peace, who ransacked Danish embassies worldwide because a Danish newspaper published cartoons of Mohammed. This is something else that can’t be taught in government schools: Muslims’ predilection for violence. On the first anniversary of the 9/11 attack, the National Education Association’s instruction materials exhorted teachers, “Do not suggest that any group is responsible” for the attack of 9/11.

If a Martian landed in America and set out to determine the nation’s official state religion, he would have to conclude it is liberalism, while Christianity and Judaism are prohibited by law. And not just in Cambridge, Massachusetts, where it’s actually on the books, but throughout the land. This is a country in which taxpayers are forced to subsidize “artistic” exhibits of aborted fetuses, crucifixes in urine, and gay pornography. Meanwhile, it’s unconstitutional to display a Nativity scene at Christmas or the Ten Commandments on government property if the purpose is to promote monotheistic religion.

Nearly half the members of the Supreme Court—the ones generally known as “liberals”—are itching to ban the references to God on our coins and in the Pledge of Allegiance. They resisted in 2004 on procedural grounds only because it was an election year. The absence of a divinity makes liberals’ belief system no less religious. Liberals define religion as only those belief systems that subscribe to the notion of a divine being in order to dismiss other religions as mere religion and theirs as something greater. Shintoism and Buddhism have no Creator God either, and they are considered religions. Curiously, those are two of the most popular religions among leftists—at least until 9/11, when Islam became all the rage.

Liberalism is a comprehensive belief system denying the Christian belief in man’s immortal soul. Their religion holds that there is nothing sacred about human consciousness. It’s just an accident no more significant than our possession of opposable thumbs. They deny what we know about ourselves: that we are moral beings in God’s image. Without this fundamental understanding of man’s place in the world, we risk being lured into misguided pursuits, including bestiality, slavery, and PETA membership. Liberals swoon in pagan admiration of Mother Earth, mystified and overawed by her power. They deny the Biblical idea of dominion and progress, the most ringing affirmation of which is the United States of America. Although they are Druids, liberals masquerade as rationalists, adopting a sneering tone of scientific sophistication, which is a little like being condescended to by a tarot card reader.

Liberals hate science and react badly to it. They will literally run from the room, lightheaded and nauseated, when told of data that might suggest that the sexes have different abilities in math and science. They repudiate science when it contradicts their pagan beliefs—that the AIDS virus doesn’t discriminate, that there is no such thing as IQ, that nuclear power is dangerous and scary, or that breast implants cause disease. Liberals use the word science exactly as they use the word constitutional.

Both words are nothing more or less than a general statement of liberal approval, having nothing to do with either science or the Constitution. (Thus, for example, the following sentence makes sense to liberals: President Clinton saved the Constitution by repeatedly ejaculating on a fat Jewish girl in the Oval Office.) The core of the Judeo-Christian tradition says that we are utterly and distinctly apart from other species. We have dominion over the plants and the animals on Earth. God gave it to us, it’s ours—as stated succinctly in the book of Genesis. Liberals would sooner trust the stewardship of the Earth to Shetland ponies and dung beetles. All their pseudoscience supports an alternative religion that says we are an insignificant part of nature.

Environmentalists want mass infanticide, zero population growth, reduced standards of living, and vegetarianism. The core of environmentalism is that they hate mankind. Everything liberals believe is in elegant opposition to basic Biblical precepts.

- Our religion says that human progress proceeds from the spark of divinity in the human soul; their religion holds that human progress is achieved through sex and death.

- We believe in invention and creation; they catalogue with stupefaction the current state of our diminishing resources and tell us to stop consuming.

- We say humans stand apart from the world and our charge is Planet Earth; they say we are part of the world, and our hubristic use of nature is sinful.

- We say humans are in God’s image; they say we are no different morally from the apes.

- We believe in populating the Earth until there’s standing room only and then colonizing Mars; they believe humans are in the twilight of their existence.

Our book is Genesis. Their book is Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring, the original environmental hoax. Carson brainwashed an entire generation into imagining a world without birds, killed by DDT. Because of liberals’ druidical religious beliefs, they won’t allow us to save Africans dying in droves of malaria with DDT because DDT might hurt the birds. A few years after oil drilling began in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, a saboteur set off an explosion blowing a hole in the pipeline and releasing an estimated 550,000 gallons of oil. It was one of the most devastating environmental disasters in recent history. Six weeks later, all the birds were back. Birds are like rats—you couldn’t get rid of them if you tried.

The various weeds and vermin liberals are always trying to save are no more distinguishable than individual styles of rap music. The massive Dickey-Lincoln Dam, 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. Liberals didn’t even know this plant still existed, but suddenly they were seized with affection for it. They had been missing it all that time! (Granted, the rediscovery of the Furbish lousewort has improved the lives of every man, woman, and child in America in ways too numerous to count, but even so . . . ) Liberals are more upset when a tree is chopped down than when a child is aborted. Even if one rates an unborn child less than a full-blown person, doesn’t the unborn child rate slightly higher than vegetation? Liberals are constantly warning us that man is overloading the environment to the detriment of the plants. Howard Dean left the Episcopal Church—which is barely even a church—because his church, in Montpelier, Vermont, would not cede land for a bike path. Environmentally friendly exercise was more important than tending to the human soul.

That’s all you need to know about the Democrats.

Blessed be the peacemakers who create a diverse, nonsexist working environment in paperless offices. Suspiciously, the Democrats’ idea of an energy policy never involves the creation of new energy. They want solar power, wind power, barley power. How about creating a new source of energy? Nuclear reactors do that with no risk of funding Arab terrorists or—more repellent to liberals—Big Oil Companies. But in a spasm of left-wing insanity in the seventies, nuclear power was curtailed in this country.

Japan has nuclear power, France has nuclear power—almost all modern countries have nuclear power. But we had Jane Fonda in the movie The China Syndrome. Liberals are very picky about their admiration for Western Europe.

Now it turns out even Chernobyl wasn’...

Inside This Book (Learn More)
Browse Sample Pages
Front Cover | Copyright | Table of Contents | Excerpt | Index
Search inside this book:

What Other Items Do Customers Buy After Viewing This Item?


Customer Reviews

Most helpful customer reviews
4 of 6 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars Perhaps the worst book I have ever read. Oct 9 2009
Format:Paperback
This book is almost comical. It took everything I had to finish reading it. From her superficial understanding of complex ideas to her almost hilarious manipulation of ideas and history, this book is quite simply pathetic. The fact that it's a NYT best seller is actually quite scary. Her capacity for analysis is so bad, that her argument falls back on itself close to the end. A sad day for literacy -- perhaps one of the necessary evils of freedom of speech (itself a liberal ideal). Tragic.
Was this review helpful to you?
13 of 21 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars Thinking Inside the Box Dec 4 2006
By BeatleBangs1964 TOP 100 REVIEWER
Format:Hardcover
Ann Coulter is extremely intelligent, but she appears to see the world in stark shades of black and white with no shades of gray in between. This book is like a train wreck - you know going in you will be horrified, yet it is that horrified fascination and morbid curiosity that keeps you from turning away.

This author's philosophies are completely divergent from mine and I admit that her strident reiteration of her seemingly relentless views drive me up a tree. She has every right on earth to express her opinions and that same right applies to everyone else, including those who hold very different opinions. I can't stand the way she condemns those she calls liberals and claims that anybody who supports a remotely liberal philosophy is godless. Horse feathers! How on earth does she support the claim that liberals' beliefs are the anthesis of Biblical precepts? She fails to support that argment which I think is a fallacy at best and a sick indictment of a large segment of the population at worst. This hollers "intolerance" with painful reverberations.

Her weird hypothetical scenario of a Martian arriving in America, that Martian would be hard put to guess what the nation's official state religion is and would draw the conclusion that it was liberalism. Baloney! Since when is a political ideology a religion that includes worship of a deity? The arguments in this book are nonsensical at times and just don't add up.

Coulter also claims that Christianity has been outlawed in Massachusetts, but there is absolutely nothing to verify this. In fact, I have been to Massachusetts many times; know people there and let's just say that all Christian religions are flourishing. How does she explain the Kennedy family, a juggernaut of politicians from Massachusetts who are Catholic? I defy her to explain that one. Catholicism, which is also the religion I follow is a Christian faith. I have never once encountered religious intolerance in Massachusetts or a dearth of Catholic churches and people to do faith sharing with there.

The sheer smugness and tone of intolerance that underscore this book really turns my stomach. It is bad enough enduring the liberal bashing, but to make matters worse, Coulter stridently attacks Episcopalians, stating their church is not a real church. By whose standards? And what consitutes a "real" church to her? For Pete's sake!

I think it is stupid and counterproductive to indict entire groups of people. There is diversity in ALL groups, liberals and Christians included. Ms. Coulter does not even personally know most of the people she paints with her broad brush strokes in stark shades of black and white with no variation. How on earth can anybody make generalizations about any group of people, most of whom they don't even know? To add further insult to further injury, Ms. Coulter appears to snarl at anybody who dares disagree with her. Archie Bunker, the fictional bigot of "All in the Family" fame sounded quantum leaps more tolerant than Ms. Coulter EVER has!

Challenging and refuting Ms. Coulter was not difficult. Let's hope that she will take the Biblical passages about tolerance of others to heart before she writes another book or lambastes the widows of 9/11.
Was this review helpful to you?
3 of 6 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars Not the sharpest knife in the drawer Aug 13 2008
By Dogman TOP 1000 REVIEWER
Format:Paperback
I saw Coulter on a tv show once and she was, to say the least, dumb as a doorknob. No offense, but this lady needs some serious counselling.
Good book for right-wing nut jobs though.
Was this review helpful to you?
Want to see more reviews on this item?
Most recent customer reviews
4.0 out of 5 stars Ann is not for everyone, but if you are tired of Liberal know-it-alls,...
I own many of Ms. Coulter's book and this one is also a good one. Her writing style is not for everyone because she is very forward with her comments and she likes to pick a fight... Read more
Published on Sep 7 2010 by J. Chao
5.0 out of 5 stars Another winner.
Having just re-read Ann Coulters latest book, Godless, I am reminded of why I am so fond of her. Once again, the author has sliced through liberal silliness and confusion with a... Read more
Published on Dec 29 2006 by S. Andersen
3.0 out of 5 stars Yeah, Coutler's nuts, but...
Yes, Ann Coulter is a crazy bitch. But she does have a point: Darwinism is bogus. It's been proved bogus for a while now, and it's kinda stunning that so many people still think of... Read more
Published on Dec 19 2006 by MightyMad
1.0 out of 5 stars Same Old Same Old from the Tired Old Religious Right
Well, the proponents of intelligent design are on a losing streak at the moment, and so out come books like this. Read more
Published on Dec 1 2006 by B. Collinson
1.0 out of 5 stars Sound and Fury
So I read the book, and while its convincing, Coulter cherry picks information to suit her arguments. Read more
Published on July 17 2006 by Usman Hamid
5.0 out of 5 stars Bullseye!!!!
I have read all of chapter 8 and 11 along with the first few pages of chapter one. Powerful. Clear. Precise. Accurate. Read more
Published on Jun 30 2006 by C. Ablin
1.0 out of 5 stars The Church of Conservatism
As a follow up to the poignant and largely accurate remarks by G Taylor of Waterloo I thought I would add my two cents on this 'Neo-conservative' mentality promoted by Ann Coulter,... Read more
Published on Jun 14 2006 by Anonymous Writer
5.0 out of 5 stars Typical liberal
G. Taylor (Waterloo, Ontario, Canada) says: "Although, I have yet to read the book I thought some general commentary on Ann Coulter was warranted to warn the reader of a blatant... Read more
Published on Jun 12 2006 by Marc M
5.0 out of 5 stars The real reason
The real reason there has been such an intense reaction to Miss Coulter's book is that it has hit a nerve. She may be a bit brash, but she is also mainly correct. Read more
Published on Jun 12 2006 by Critic
Search Customer Reviews
Only search this product's reviews

Listmania!

Create a Listmania! list

Look for similar items by category


Feedback


Amazon.ca Privacy Statement Amazon.ca Shipping Information Amazon.ca Returns & Exchanges