Godless - The Church of Liberalism

[Easyrider]

GODLESS – The Church of Liberalism - is the most explosive book yet from #1 New York Times bestselling author Ann Coulter. In this completely original and thoroughly controversial work, Coulter writes, “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.’ ” (Amazon.com review)

"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," Coulter writes in "Godless: The Church of Liberalism."

The WND columnist argues that while many Americans are outraged by liberal hostility to traditional religion, to focus solely on the Left's attacks on Judeo-Christian tradition is to miss a larger point: Liberalism is a religion—a godless one.

Chapter headings in Coulter's "Godless" include "On the Seventh Day, God Rested and Liberals Schemed" and "Liberals' Doctrine of Infallibility: Sobbing Hysterical Women" and "The Holiest Sacrament: Abortion."

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/artic ... E_ID=50364

Let the fur fly.

[McCulloch]

[...]
Perhaps Canada is becoming (gasp) the Godless Church of Liberalism!

In Canada Liberal is the name of the political party that just got voted out of Parliament. Our new Prime Minister is a practicing Protestant. Aliance Church, I believe.

[Easyrider]

Ann Coulter is correct. Once these widows make a noise in the political realm they are to be challenged. The Left is using dirty politics far more than the right in using poor widows to do their propagandizing.

Go get 'em Ann.

The liberal left thrives on "victims." Once they have a victim then they can create another wallet-clearing federal program to give themselves more political power.

They also trot out "victims" because people normally will not criticize them or hold them to account because they don't want to hurt their precious feelings.

Case in point: David Letterman condemned Bill O'Reilly for going after liberal activist Cindy Sheehan. In reply, O'Reilly told Letterman that no one is going to call murdering terrorists "Freedom Fighters" (as Sheehan did) on his watch and not be held accountable for it. The concept of terrorist murderers not being true "Freedom Fighters" must have been lost on Letterman and Sheehan.

[McCulloch]

Darwinism never disappoints the liberals. They never say ‘Well, I'd like to have cheap meaningless sex tonight, but that would violate Darwinism.' They can't even say ‘I'd like to have cheap meaningless sex tonight with a goat, but that would violate Darwinism.' If you have an instinct to do it, it must be evolved adaptation. Liberals subscribe to Darwinism not because it's science, which they hate, but out of some wishful thinking. Darwinism lets them off the hook morally.

If this is representative of the what passes for thinking from Ms. Coulter, we have nothing to fear except for the gullible.

[Lainey]

You know what scares me? I had no idea how extreme she was until now. She certainly came off as a conservative republican in the Sun, but not a Jerry Falwell type. Scary.

McCulloch wrote:

In Canada Liberal is the name of the political party that just got voted out of Parliament. Our new Prime Minister is a practicing Protestant. Aliance Church, I believe.

And Paul Martin and Jean Chretien were Catholics. Who cares? I like Stephen Harper. I think Stockwell Day was more up Ann Coulter's alley.

Easyrider, how would you like it if somebody took out an ad in the paper against Christianity? Why did this Saskatchewan farmer feel the need to pick on a group of people? What was his motivation?

McCulloch wrote:

If this is representative of the what passes for thinking from Ms. Coulter, we have nothing to fear except for the gullible

I don't know, McCulloch. When her views are given a measure of legitimacy in a major national newspaper, and the more extreme aspects of her views are downplayed or hidden, it's hard to say.

[1John2_26]

1John2_26 wrote:
Ann Coulter is correct. Once these widows make a noise in the political realm they are to be challenged. The Left is using dirty politics far more than the right in using poor widows to do their propagandizing.

Go get 'em Ann.


The liberal left thrives on "victims." Once they have a victim then they can create another wallet-clearing federal program to give themselves more political power.

"Victims?" You're not kidding. Liberalism virtually "is" victimhood. What was once the best of ideological processes has become hardly more than pimps and cowards desiring an "anything goes" and "do what thou wilt," mentality that has literally caused the deaths of millions. When liberals started making morality a hate crime back in the sixties (and refined to what it is "NOW") it opened the floodgates to where we are "now" with many, children in schools killing each other and engaging in licentiousness not seen since King Bera's kingdom was still around. Those that are not slaughtered in the womb anyway.

Ann Coulter is just pointing out cause and effect and who and what is causing the effect.

Now, she is anything but preciuos and innocent, BUT, when it comes to Liberalism and the lascivious zombies of leftist-lemming-elitisim, who try to pretend they are not the most hateful people around, she is absolutely right on. From what I've experienced anyway.


And no, I am not Ann Coulter.

[Cathar1950]

It seems some Christians like to think they are victims.
Ann is not on your side.
From what I hear she is a obnoxious, chain smoking, drunk with a horrible annoying
giggle. That is what is said by the right. So I have heard.

And no, I am not Ann Coulter.

If you say so.

[McCulloch]

Moderator Warning

Is this a civil comment?

And no, I am not Ann Coulter.

If you say so.
You sure to write some trash.

[Cathar1950]

Is this a civil comment?

I guess not.
So I deleted it.

[Rob]

Darwinism never disappoints the liberals. They never say ‘Well, I'd like to have cheap meaningless sex tonight, but that would violate Darwinism.' They can't even say ‘I'd like to have cheap meaningless sex tonight with a goat, but that would violate Darwinism.' If you have an instinct to do it, it must be evolved adaptation. Liberals subscribe to Darwinism not because it's science, which they hate, but out of some wishful thinking. Darwinism lets them off the hook morally.

If this is representative of the what passes for thinking from Ms. Coulter, we have nothing to fear except for the gullible.

You know what scares me? I had no idea how extreme she was until now. She certainly came off as a conservative republican in the Sun, but not a Jerry Falwell type. Scary.

If this is representative of the what passes for thinking from Ms. Coulter, we have nothing to fear except for the gullible

I don't know, McCulloch. When her views are given a measure of legitimacy in a major national newspaper, and the more extreme aspects of her views are downplayed or hidden, it's hard to say.

She seems like the female version of Rush Limbaugh, Pat Robinson, and Jerry Falwell all wrapped up into one. Her ignorant demagoguery is typical of the screeds coming out of the fundamentalist Christian neo-conservative party wing. This type of blind black-n-white demagoguery is no different than the propaganda spewed forth by Gobels and such. It is designed to trumph intelligent discussion and to appeal to the emotions of fear and hatred, and to rally the fundamentalist Christian troops to get politically active.

McCulloch, consider the fact that in the US less than 50% voted; if such as Coulter can rally those with similar mindsets, it is not hard to imagine those who espouse such bigoted rhetoric gaining political power due to the apathy and lack of participation of those who know better. That fact alone should give all thoughtful people pause.

[MagusYanam]

Ooh, ooh! Look at me! Christian liberal over here! Can anyone spell 'cognitive dissonance'?

She [Ann Coulter] seems like the female version of Rush Limbaugh, Pat Robinson, and Jerry Falwell all wrapped up into one. Her ignorant demagoguery is typical of the screeds coming out of the fundamentalist Christian neo-conservative party wing. This type of blind black-n-white demagoguery is no different than the propaganda spewed forth by Gobels and such. It is designed to trumph intelligent discussion and to appeal to the emotions of fear and hatred, and to rally the fundamentalist Christian troops to get politically active.

McCulloch, consider the fact that in the US less than 50% voted; if such as Coulter can rally those with similar mindsets, it is not hard to imagine those who espouse such bigoted rhetoric gaining political power due to the apathy and lack of participation of those who know better. That fact alone should give all thoughtful people pause.

I don't give her even that much credit. She's just another political huckster who thinks she can write, and will write anything just so long as she knows it will turn her a buck. And the sad part is, it's working. One of her books was rated a bestseller by the New York Times.

Oh well. Fate will catch up with all obnoxious, chain-smoking, drunken political whores before the end. I just pray the people who've been hoodwinked by her will see her for the fraud she is before they waste too much of their money and time.