Losing Our Religion and over one million other books are available for Amazon Kindle. Learn more

Vous voulez voir cette page en français ? Cliquez ici.

Sign in to turn on 1-Click ordering.
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 Losing Our Religion on your Kindle in under a minute.

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

Losing Our Religion: The Liberal Media's Attack on Christianity [Hardcover]

S. E. Cupp
1.0 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (1 customer review)
List Price: CDN$ 32.00
Price: CDN$ 19.52 & FREE Shipping on orders over CDN$ 25. Details
You Save: CDN$ 12.48 (39%)
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 Tuesday, April 22? Choose One-Day Shipping at checkout.


Amazon Price New from Used from
Kindle Edition --  
Hardcover, Bargain Price CDN $11.87  
Hardcover, April 27 2010 CDN $19.52  
Paperback CDN $12.41  

Book Description

April 27 2010
"The press has become a tool of oppression—politicized, self–aware, self–motivated, and power–hungry. . . . In short, these people can no longer be trusted."  —From S. E. Cupp’s Losing Our Religion


It’s time to wake up and smell the bias. The go-to commentator for such programs as Fox News’s Hannity and CNN’s Larry King Live and Reliable Sources, S. E. Cupp is just that—a reliable source for the latest news, trends, and forecasts in young, bright, conservative America. Savvy and outspoken when shattering left-leaning assumptions as she did in Why You’re Wrong About the Right, Cupp now takes on the most pressing threat to the values and beliefs held and practiced by the majority of Americans: the marginalizing of Christianity by the flagrantly biased liberal media.

From her galvanizing introduction, you know where S. E. Cupp stands: She’s an atheist. A non-believer. Which makes her the perfect impartial reporter from the trenches of a culture war dividing America and eroding the Judeo-Christian values on which this country was founded. Starting at the top, she exposes the unwitting courtship of President Obama and the liberal press, which consistently misreports or downplays Obama’s clear discomfort with, or blatant disregard for, religious America—from covering up religious imagery in the backdrop of his Georgetown University speech to his absence from events surrounding the National Day of Prayer, to identifying America in his inaugural address as, among other things, "a nation of non-believers." She likens the calculated attacks of the liberal media to a class war, a revolution with a singular purpose: to overthrow God and silence Christian America for good. And she sends out an urgent call for all Americans to push back the leftist propaganda blitz striking on the Internet, radio, television, in films, publishing, and print journalism—or invite the tyrannies of a "mainstream" media set on mocking our beliefs, controlling our decisions, and extinguishing our freedoms.

Now, discover the truth behind the war against Christmas—and how political correctness keeps the faithful under wraps . . . the one-sided analyses of Prop 8 and the gay marriage debate . . . the media pot-shots at Sarah Palin’s personal faith . . . the politicization of entertainment mainstays such as American Idol and the Miss USA Pageant . . . and much more. Also included are her penetrating interviews with Dinesh D’Souza, Martha Zoller, James T. Harris, Newt Gingrich, Kevin Madden, and Kevin Williamson of National Review, delivering must-read analyses of the latest stunning lowlights from the liberal media.

Customers Who Bought This Item Also Bought

Product Details

Product Description

About the Author

S.E. CUPP is a regular guest commentator on MSNBC, CNN, C-SPAN, and Fox News Channel programs including Hannity, Larry King Live, The Joy Behar Show, Red Eye with Greg Gutfeld, Geraldo and Reliable Sources. A nationally published political columnist and culture critic, she is currently an online columnist for the New York Daily News and senior writer at The Daily Caller. She coauthored Why You’re Wrong About the Right with Brett Joshpe. Visit www.redsecupp.com.

Excerpt. © Reprinted by permission. All rights reserved.


Worship is, in this country, both a public and a private act of devotion. While many Americans pray privately in their homes, around a dinner table, or before they go to bed, they also worship publicly, in church, at their places of business, on the athletic field, at their local soup kitchen, and, for many, every time they say the Pledge of Allegiance or sing the National Anthem.

But worship of any kind, private or public, gets religious America into serious hot water with the liberal media, which has come to mock and resent public displays of faith, or any acknowledgment of God or religion by the state. The mere suggestion that the country is in fact a Christian one is declared backward, dangerous, and heretical to the Constitution of the United States.

Christmas and Christian holidays, prayer, public references to biblical scripture, the Ten Commandments, “In God We Trust,” one nation “under God,” “God Bless America”—it’s all now subject to ridicule and scrutiny by the liberal press, which has decided, without consulting the citizens of our country (80 percent of whom are Christian), that it’s no longer seemly or appropriate to worship out loud. Their collective distaste for displays of Christian devotion has grown from mild to maniacal in less than a decade, despite the fact that the Christian population in the United States has grown from 159,514,000 to 173,402,000 between 2001 and 2008.1

To be clear, the liberal media has no problem with worship—as long as it’s secular. The media worships a great many false idols in its daily broadcasts, front-page stories, news segments, and online features. The liberal media worships Hollywood and celebrity, breathlessly fawning over Angelina Jolie’s every inconsequential gesticulation or Lindsay Lohan’s less-than-shocking crimes and misdemeanors, or the latest castoff on the 147th The Bachelor. It worships its political demagogues, such as John F. Kennedy, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and Barack Obama, and takes turns propping them up on pedestals so that you may worship them, too. It worships liberalism and all its causes célèbres, such as environmentalism, gay marriage, abortion, and, the ACLU’s newest pet cause, jihadi rights. And, of course, it worships itself, with flashy correspondence dinners, magazine parties, self-satisfying award ceremonies, and giddy self-promotion. During the presidential election, CNN called itself “the best political team on television” as many as fifty times … in a single day.

But worship God? That’s something else entirely. Not only has the liberal media seemingly stripped the word from its lexicon, but when it does bring it up it’s to mock believers or champion the cause of the angry atheist, who, the media promises us, represents the new majority opinion about God and faith—that faith should be banished to the far corners of the earth (Alaska would suffice) so that it is spoken of only in hushed tones in one’s own bedroom. You know, like porn.

As a result of the liberal media’s relentless efforts to shame God to a place on the dusty bottom shelf of modern American civilization, it seems that we now have a president who is taking direct cues from the media’s vow of silence. And for that gift, the gift of God-omission, the liberal media rewards President Obama with positive coverage. Sure as the sun rises and sets, the cycle repeats.


Obama’s first year in office was marked by the kinds of slaps to the faithful that we usually see only during an episode of Real Time with Bill Maher. But they were actually foreshadowed in a speech he gave in San Francisco on the campaign trail, in which he said, “You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for twenty-five years and nothing’s replaced them. And it’s not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or antitrade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

The comment was shocking both for its sheer stupidity—how did that get past his campaign managers when he was going to the Pennsylvania primary just days later?—and for its alarming classism. Religious Americans bristled at the notion that tough economic times make them “cling” to anything, let alone their faith. And they took particular issue with the idea that “antipathy to people who aren’t like them,” “anti-immigrant sentiment,” and “antitrade sentiment” were somehow equatable with religious devotion. At this moment, which Democratic challenger Hillary Clinton and Republican challenger John McCain both seized on readily, Obama seemed to reveal at best a lack of understanding of American faith, and at worst a real disdain for it. In short, he was in perfect lockstep with the liberal media.

So when he eventually became President Obama, the many continued indiscretions that would follow were swept quietly under the carpet by the liberal press, which saw in him a kindred secular spirit who wouldn’t bore them with God references every other minute like the last guy did. “Finally,” they sighed, “a president who is just as uncomfortable with public worship as we are.”

And on the very day he was sworn in, Obama delivered another slight to religious America when he became the first president in the history of the United States to mention atheists, calling America a nation of, among other things, nonbelievers. He would, over the course of his first year, go on to regularly put nonbelievers on the same plane as the religious faithful. This isn’t just an insult to believers. It should also be an insult to nonbelievers, who so militantly insist they are separate from those kooky God lovers, and intellectually superior to them. Lumping atheists into a group of so-called religious fanatics should be the last thing they want. But it’s also an inaccurate comparison. Equating belief with nonbelief is equating apples and oranges. One implies a moral value system, the other is marked explicitly by the lack of one. That doesn’t mean nonbelievers are immoral, of course, but it does mean they are structurally and intrinsically different entities. The president may as well acknowledge Beatles fans and dog lovers in the same breath if he’s going to acknowledge nonbelievers, for they have as much to do with American values as atheism does.

For that inaugural nod, the country’s self-avowed atheists—all 1.6 percent of them—rejoiced, and the liberal media was there to help them celebrate. Steven Waldman wrote of American atheists in the Huffington Post: “Not surprisingly, they greeted Obama’s inaugural declaration with some surprise and joy.” Waldman then quoted Ed Buckner of American Atheists as saying, “In his Inaugural Address today, President Barack Obama finally did what many before him should have done, rightly citing the great diversity of Americans as part of the nation’s great strength and including ‘non-believers’ in that mix. His mother would have been proud, and so are we.”2

Greg M. Epstein, Harvard University’s humanist chaplain (yes, apparently that’s a real post), similarly gushed in his Washington Post column, “I too was pleasantly surprised to see the President return, after a bit of wandering in recent months, to his previous practice of extending a rhetorical hand to my community in his oratory. As reiterated by my colleagues in the American Humanist Association’s recent ad campaign, Obama is the proud product of ‘parenting beyond belief’—his strong relationship with his Humanist mother S. Ann Dunham makes him living proof that family values without religion build character.”3

It seemed that, despite Barack Obama’s careful insistence during the campaign that he was a devoted Christian, with a simple mention of nonbelievers in his inaugural address atheists were ready to claim him as one of their own—he was living proof that being raised an atheist made him a better person!

And, in case anyone thinks the mention of atheists was a thoughtless or casual inclusion, David Axelrod, his senior adviser, admitted that Obama personally inserted the nonbeliever references into his inaugural speech.4


The nonbeliever mention was just the beginning of Obama’s courtship of the liberal press, notoriously averse to God-talk.

In April 2009, Obama gave a major address on the economy at Georgetown University, a private Catholic college in Washington, D.C. After the address it was discovered that the White House advance team had asked the school to remove or cover all religious imagery and signage, specifically a monogram symbolizing Jesus’ name in Gaston Hall, where Obama spoke. The school did, in fact, cover the monogram with a piece of black-painted plywood.

The incident caused an uproar among Catholics, who denounced both the Obama administration for making such a demand and the school for conceding. Why did the president choose to speak at the Catholic school if he was going to insist on hiding its religious nature?

Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League, criticized Obama for asking the school to “neuter itself.” “No bishop who might speak at the White House would ever request that a crucifix be displayed behind him,” he said.5

For America’s Christians, it read as though Obama was uncomfortable with religion, or at the very least wished to dissociate himself from it. Religion scholars of all kinds dis...

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

Customer Reviews

5 star
4 star
3 star
2 star
1.0 out of 5 stars
1.0 out of 5 stars
Most helpful customer reviews
6 of 11 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars Don't judge a book by its title July 24 2010
There are a few far-reaching points that would support an argument that the mainstream media is singling out or "attacking" Christianity, but the majority of examples used in this book suggest that the media depicts religion/Christianity and its followers in ways which are advantageous to the "liberal" media's political agenda. In other words "the media uses [religion] to humanize the left and to demonize the right" is a more appropriate claim than "the Liberal media is attacking Christianity." Therefore pulling out the "objective atheist" card is unnecessary and irrelevant, seeing as this book is merely a Conservative's criticism of the "liberal" media's misuse of religion and is not a defense of Christianity at all. Also it looks very poorly on the author's credibility when the very first footnote in the book reveals 1) that the author incorrectly cites a statistic and 2) that the author deliberately manipulates another statistic to support an argument, when in actuality it undermines this argument. The author states that 80% of American citizens are Christian, then states that "the Christian population in the United States has grown from 159,514,000 to 173,402,000 between 2001 and 2008," and finally ends the paragraph by citing the 2008 ARIS. 1) The 2008 ARIS shows that 75.99% of the population is Christian which if rounded, would be rounded up to the 76th percentile, not the 80th. This four percent gap is a significant inaccuracy, considering that the same survey shows that 3.9% of the total population accounts for all other religions. 2) The fact that the Christian population has grown from 159,514,000 to 173,402,000 between 2001 and 2008 is insignificant in the grand scheme of American religious identification: the total population has also grown between 2001 and 2008. Read more ›
Was this review helpful to you?
Most Helpful Customer Reviews on Amazon.com (beta)
Amazon.com: 2.8 out of 5 stars  65 reviews
102 of 142 people found the following review helpful
3.0 out of 5 stars Could be worse, could be a lot better May 25 2010
By MassReader - Published on Amazon.com
Like most books about current events, this one has a mediocre rating because most people give it either one star or five; which indicates that most of the reviewers (especially those negative) didn't even bother to read the book.

Based on the merits of the book (not the author's politics), I'm going to give the book three stars. It could be worse, but it could be a lot better.

First, it's important to realize that oral and written communications are not the same. When you see Ms Cupp on TV, she can really shoot off at the mouth. Don't get me wrong, I agree with most of her views, and I could watch her all day. But this book has the style of Cupp shooting off at the mouth. And it probably was merely dictated, not composed on a keyboard. The result, when transcribed into written form, is something repetitive, monotonous, meandering, and sometimes contradictory on minor points. For example, on page 14 Cupp states that 80% of our country is Christian; and in the same paragraph says that's 173 million Christians. These figures are repeated elsewhere in the book. With a total population of 300 million, 80% of the country would be about 240 million Christians; or 173 million Christians would be about 58% of the country. Cupp should choose one set of consistent figures and stick with it.

Cupp also misses a few chances to knock the ball out of the park, probably because she composed orally. For example, "when a Mathematica report ... suggested that teenagers who had taken a pledge of abstinence were almost or just as likely to acquire a sexually transmitted disease as those who hadn't pledged, the liberal media jumped on it." (p. 137) Cupp should have followed up by simply saying, even by liberal standards, a pledge is just as effective as most other sex education.

Cupp also falls into the common mode of thinking that anything that's not pro something is automatically anti. I don't doubt that there are elements on the Left trying to destroy Chistianity in the public square. But not all the characters behind all the issues in this book are among them. But enough of them are, and Cupp should have devoted more space to those individuals and their impact.

Then there is the chapter on evolution. Cupp doesn't make the point clearly enough that the percentage of people who ascribe to creationism make it something worth respecting, but not necessarily true. Her harping on the percent of people who believe in it, is like hearing the Left insist that global warming is true because of "consensus." Consensus doesn't make creationism any more true or acceptable than evolution or global warming. The arguments about evolution are not an "attack" on Christianity, because most Christians (as Cupp finally concedes) see no incompatibility between evolution and faith. After pages of defending the case for creationism in the schools, the chapter concludes with the wisdom of Sarah Palin explaining exactly why evolution instead of creationism should be taught in the schools. (This was provided as a defense against attacks on Palin's being anti-science, not as a defense of evolution. So Cupp had gone full circle on the issue. She states that she herself accepts evolution, so perhaps her heart wasn't in the battle.) The whole science v. religion debate is a boring non-starter, continually stoked by extremists on both sides, hoping to rile other extremists.

Another chapter that is completely tangential is that dedicated to the attack on Fox News. This is not directly related to religion at all, so probably deserves no more space than a couple pages or some other quick aside. Yes, the administration and other networks attack Fox News, and in part because Fox doesn't denigrate faith; but such attacks against Fox are not direct attacks on faith. At worst, these might be indirect attacks on faith, but we don't place our Faith in Fox.

While criticizing those who attacked Palin's church or Pentecostal denomination as an irrelevancy, Cupp then devotes several pages to attacking Obama's church or denomination. If we should accept Palin's own statements on her faith, then we have no choice but to judge Obama's faith on his own statements. By lobbing salvos against Obama's religion, Cupp reduced herself and her arguments to the level of those on the Left whom she accuses of causing us to "lose our religion." Her panning of Obama for changing denominations or churches (p. 187) loses much of its bite when she earlier describes Palin's doing much the same (p. 184). If her point is that Palin takes her faith more seriously and changes churches for internal reasons, as opposed to Obama's appearance of changing for political expedience, fair enough. But again, that doesn't require a whole chapter.

Time after time, Cupp pounds the "liberal media" for its influential role in destroying American religion, yet she also (rightly) claims such media are "driven...into financial ruin and ratings obscurity." (p. 169) If the liberal media is so reduced, what do we really have to worry about? If a few dozen Christians can survive and then thrive against the forces of the whole Roman Empire, I don't think they have much to worry about in America yet. In the final analysis, if the country "loses its religion," it will be only because of bad faith formation in the members of our houses of worship. If the next generation is taught to hold and honor its faith and to respect the faith of others, no power on earth will shake it. In other words, Cupp fails to prove the thesis suggested by the book's title; in fact, on the contrary, she says the number of Christians has increased in the 8 year period of 2001 to 2008 by 14 million people. (p. 14)

Cupp's book is not a bad read. It moves along and in places is even fun.This book is mostly one pundit railing against other pundits, and it can disappoint the reader who expects more. However, if you want a more serious work on the title subject, I would recommend David Limbaugh's Persecution: How Liberals Are Waging War Against Christianity. Attorney Limbaugh does a thorough job of detailing legal efforts against Christianity by law enforcement agencies, the courts, and other policy implementers. You might also check out The Criminalization of Christianity by Janet Folger, but it's not as comprehensive or balanced as Limbaugh's work.
27 of 37 people found the following review helpful
3.0 out of 5 stars "I don't believe in God ... But the God I don't believe in is a good God" Oct. 22 2011
By Kendal B. Hunter - Published on Amazon.com
Sarah Elizabeth Cupp is one of the new voices of the younger conservatism. And the even-younger voices of the new conservatism would do well to watch her. He writing style is energetic, quick, occasionally sly, and always pithy. Bloggers should emulate her style. She has it down, and gets the message out, and gets it right--pun sort of intended.

And I appreciate how she does not ape Ann Coulter; she is her own woman.

This book is more than conservative cheer-leading. Of course she says nothing new. But that is the point: "ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls" (Jeremiah 6:16). When conservatives (or the left for that matter--we all do this) read these books, we do it for several purposes. Of course we do need cheer-leading. And the affirmation.

But we also look for new insights. Truth is both old and new. And "old and familiar subjects may be dressed in new clothes; they need not always be presented in the self-same way." We look for new ways of expressing old ideas, and look for new connections between old ideas. So each book is part of continuing education. We get new data--ammunition for intellect.

So now a comment from the Logic Gallery.

Ms. Cupp admits "in the interest of full disclosure" that she is an atheist (10). She is up-front about it. But I'm not sure she see the problem.

In short, this book is a non sequitur, a classic example of "stolen concept" (Philosophy: Who Needs It (The Ayn Rand Library Vol. 1), 22). She is defending something--and defending exuberantly--something she does not believe in.

("If this be hypocrisy, make the most of it")

This is not something unique to Ms. Cupp. Rabbi Daniel Lapin did the same thin earlier in AMERICA'S REAL WAR. He, as an orthodox rabbi, defends the need for traditional Christianity. Also Catholic Bill Bennett called for a Protestant Reformation in Islam (Why We Fight: Moral Clarity and the War on Terrorism).

But there is a danger here. On a fundamental level, Ms. Cupp disagrees with with what she is proclaiming. Read page 16. She criticizes Obama for putting believers and nonbelievers on the same societal footing. "This isn't just an insult to believers. It should also be an insult to nonbelievers, who so militantly insist they are are separate from those kooky God lovers, and intellectually superior to them. Lumping atheists into a group of so-called religious fanatics should be the last thing they want. But it's also an inaccurate comparison. Equating belief with nonbelief is equating apples and oranges."


This paragraph reminds me of the discussion Yossarian and Mrs Scheisskopf have: "I don't believe in God ... But the God I don't believe in is a good God, a just God, a merciful God. He's not the mean and stupid God you make him out to be." (Catch-22: 50th Anniversary Edition, 224).

"Loosing Our Region"? But Ms. Cupp has already lost hers!

Part of the problem is that Ms. Cupp wants to have it both ways. She wants the mileage that a person gets from being an atheist (Bertrand Russell comes to mind). But she also want the mileage that comes from religion, and Christianity. And this indecision gets her into trouble. She tries to defend Michelle Bacchman's husband's clinic (Martin Bashir interview July 13, 2011). She says it is based on junk science, but still defends her. She defends junk science.

There are also the nagging weaknesses of atheism (Real Face of Atheism, The, The Case for Christ: A Journalist's Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus). One is the problem of proving a negative-0-violating the law of identity. The other is that when she gets pressed, she starts talking "soft agnosticism" (See her interview on MoxNewsDotCom where she confesses she is envious of religion people, has a degree in religious studies, and she aspires to be a person of faith one day, and would never vote for an atheist.).

Here the danger. Religion--Christianity--can merely become a tactic. We embrace the faith, not because it is true, but because it is both historical and useful. So there is no truth, just rock-star pundits with silver tongues and acid sound bites.

C. S. Lewis warned that there is a danger of seeing Christianity as merely "good" (or we might add useful) as opposed to being true (God in the Dock: Essays on Theology and Ethics, "Christian Apologetic"). He also added that "I think we must attack wherever we meet it the nonsensical idea that mutually exclusive propositions about God can both be true." This includes Ms. Cupp's idea that although she doesn't believe in God, she finds belief in Him useful.

It's Mrs Scheisskopf again: "I don't believe in God ... But the God I don't believe in is a good God."

And there is the existential aspect to Ms. Cupp.

Krister Stendahl spoke of "holy envy," or recognizing "elements in the other religious tradition or faith that you admire and wish could, in some way, be reflected in your own religious tradition or faith." If Ms. Cupp is doing this, then we congratulate her for seeing good, admiring it, and trumpeting it.

The second comes from logic. If she squares herself with the laws of identity, excluded middle, and non-contradiction, she should be fine. She sees something in the so-called "God Hypothesis." The question will be if she makes the leap.

There is hope. But will she practice what she preached?
46 of 68 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars About to get religion May 12 2011
By G. R. Welsh - Published on Amazon.com
Here are some S. E. Cupp quotes from TV Appearances:

"Today, I don't believe in God. But I'm open to being converted. I am!" [with Hannity on FOX-TV]

Bill Maher: "You're an atheist, so you think people who believe in God are deluded."
S. E. Cupp: "No I don't! I get the appeal of religion. I don't believe in God, but I'm not, like, mad at him." [Real Time with Bill Maher]

"I'm not a militant atheist. I've never really understood the angry atheists." [On C-SPAN]

"I'm envious of the faithful. So I defend the faithful, especially the Christian Right in America, at every opportunity I get." [C-SPAN]

"I haven't closed the door on faith. It just hasn't found me yet... I really aspire to be a person of faith one day." [C-SPAN]

S. E. Cupp: "As an atheist, I could never imagine electing - voting for - an atheist President... Religion keeps a person who is endowed with so much power honest. This is a person [George W. Bush] who's answering to a higher power every night, and not to the state. He doesn't think the state has all the power, and he doesn't think he himself has all the power. That's important to me. I represent 2% of the world. Why would I want someone who thinks that 98% of the world is crazy running the country?"
C-SPAN: "But you don't think that higher power exists."
S. E. Cupp: "I don't. But don't think people are crazy. I understand the allure of religion. I really do. I'm just not going to be dishonest and say that I believe in something that I don't, yet." [C-SPAN]

If S. E. Cupp really IS an atheist, then I think the only explanation for her odd comments is that she is much more focused on the political axis than the philosophical axis. She's mainly concerned with showing that she's in agreement with conservatives.

Sometimes she has to try to manufacture reasons for why she should be offended by the same things they are, and the results are truly bizarre.

Like in her book, she mentions how in his inaugural speech Obama delivered a "slight to religious America" for being the first President in US history to mention atheists and call America a nation of, among other things, nonbelievers. She writes: "He would, over the course of his first year, go on to regularly put nonbelievers on the same plane of believers. This isn't just an insult to believers. It should also be an insult to nonbelievers, who so militantly insist they are separate from those kooky God lovers, and intellectually superior to them... The president may as well mention Beatles fans and dog lovers in the same breath if he's going to acknowledge nonbelievers, for they have as much to do with American values as atheism does."

Is she familiar with what FOX-pundits have said about atheists over the years?

I think S. E. Cupp has potential as a writer, but I'm not going to give a higher rating based on potential. This book is easy to read, and has a few flashes of humor -- but the main thesis is just too vague to effectively defend.

I'd much rather read a book about what it is like to be an atheist working for FOX. To do well there, does she have to constantly act like she's "about to get religion"?
295 of 443 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars I'm mischaracterized in this book May 7 2010
By Chris Rodda - Published on Amazon.com
I'm posting this review because S.E. Cupp not only mentions me in this book, but lies -- both outrightly and by omission -- about the organization I work for, and I want to set the record straight.

Here's the passage from the book in which me and the organization I work for are mentioned:

"But the Huffington Post did publish a column by Chris Rodda, the senior research director of something called the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, and, unrelatedly I'm sure, the author of 'Liars for Jesus.' For MRFF, which had already successfully campaigned to stop the Pentagon from sending Bibles to soldiers in Iraq, the move was finally the recognition that this special-interest group had been waiting for: 'So, while those who seek to use the U.S. military to inseparably combine religion with patriotism might find the Pentagon's decision `deeply troubling and disturbing' and will certainly get a lot of mileage out of this decision to spread the notion that the Obama administration is bent on `crushing' religion, we at MRFF see it as a good sign that, under our new commander in chief, the Department of Defense might just finally be starting to obey its own regulations."11

"The New York Times covered the MRFF's 2009 lawsuit against the military alleging that it forced religious practice on soldiers. The paper also covered MRFF's lawsuit against the Air Force, alleging a commander sent an email to his air personnel that directed them to an inspirational story on a Catholic website. And it covered MRFF's 2007 suit against the Defense Department on behalf of an atheist soldier who felt he was forced to attend prayer meetings. It seems the Military Religious Freedom Foundation has a direct line to the New York Times."

Here are the lies in the above passage:

1. Cupp claims, "MRFF ... campaigned to stop the Pentagon from sending Bibles to soldiers in Iraq ..." Anyone reading that would think that MRFF was trying to keep our troops from getting Bibles to read, right? Well, MRFF has never tried to do anything of the kind. I don't know what incident Cupp is twisting to come up with this claim, so I'll give you the only two possibilities I can think of. MRFF has worked to stop Arabic Bibles from being sent to Iraq for the purpose of our troops proselytizing Iraqi Muslims, which is both forbidden by military regulations and endangers our troops by making the U.S. military look like crusaders. And MRFF has, on one occasion, demanded that the Pentagon cut its ties with one particular organization that sends Bibles to Iraq because of that particular organization's political and other objectionable activities. That's it. We have never done, and will never do, what Cupp's misleading claim says we've done.

2. Cupp claims, "The paper also covered MRFF's lawsuit against the Air Force, alleging a commander sent an email to his air personnel that directed them to an inspirational story on a Catholic website." What Cupp neglects to mention here is that the Catholic website that this commander (who was a her, not a him) directed her subordinate personnel to was a far right political Catholic website that had images depicting President Obama as Hitler and other highly objectionable political content. Of the over sixty complaints that MRFF received from Air Force personnel about this email, most were more shocked and offended by the objectionable political content than the commander's inappropriate use of military email to send a religious message. This is why the New York Times covered the story. It should also be noted that the NCO who first contacted MRFF after unsuccessfully trying to file a formal complaint against this commander was a Catholic himself.

MRFF is in no way anti Christian. In fact, 96% of the service members who contact MRFF for assistance are Christians -- Catholics and mainstream Protestants who are being told by their fundamentalist military superiors that they are not Christian enough or the right kind of Christians.

Cupp also mentions my book, "Liars for Jesus," a book which, incidentally, is unrelated to my work with MRFF. My book, the full title of which is "Liars For Jesus: The Religious Right's Alternate Version of American History Vol. 1," is a history book that debunks many of the lies about American history used by the religious right to further their political agenda. And, like MRFF, my book is in no way anti-Christian. In fact, it was a Christian minister who urged me to write it, and that same Christian minister who wrote the foreword to it.
48 of 72 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars Absurdly biased June 3 2011
By jayday - Published on Amazon.com
Starting at page 1, the drama and hyperbole of this book are so overdone that it can't be taken seriously. For example "the revolution (to destroy Christianity) that began decades ago has gained unprecedented momentum" and very soon "it will be too late." And she actually compares this "revolution" to the revolutions of Castro, Mao, and Stalin.

This book isn't worth wasting time over, but another of many examples of the hyperbole is the supposed attack by the lamestream media on The Chronicles of Narnia. The author spends several pages on this hateful anti-Christian attack on a pro-God movie. Unfortunately for her, if you go to Rotten Tomatos, the best site for movie reviews, which compiles reviews by many reviewers, you'll see that this supposed attack didn't happen. Rotten Tomatos' Top Critics, those critics who write for the ultra-radical Christian-hating lamestream media, give the movie a 76% positive rating--that is 29 reviewers recommended it, 9 didn't. Much of her book, like this example, lacks credibility.
Search Customer Reviews
Only search this product's reviews

Look for similar items by category