Discussion:
Critiquing Coulter
(too old to reply)
Gene Poole
2006-07-03 01:50:20 UTC
Permalink
Critiquing Coulter
Sightings 6/30/06

Editor's Note:
Today's issue of Sightings contains two articles, by Jerome Eric Copulsky
and by Robert S. McElvaine,treating Ann Coulter's best-selling book
Godless: The Church of Liberalism. As always, the opinions expressed in
these articles are not necessarily those of the Martin Marty Center, the
Divinity School, or the University of Chicago.

The Coulter Code
-- Jerome Eric Copulsky

Ann Coulter has been much in the news lately. With her recent best-selling
tome, Godless: The Church of Liberalism, it seems that the notorious
bomb-throwing cover girl for conservatism has turned Grand Inquisitor. The
subject matter of her book -- the idea that liberalism is a religion --
merits a sighting here, and not only because it demonstrates the
increasingly "religiosecular" ambivalence of our world that Martin E.
Marty wrote of two weeks ago ("Religiosecular Meditations," June 19).

"Liberalism," Coulter informs us, is a "church," complete with its own
creation myth (Darwinism), priests (public school teachers), doctrines
(infallibility of victims), sacraments (abortion), and so forth. Coulter's
liberals subscribe to a pantheistic doctrine, renouncing the biblical
distinction between human beings (made in the image of God) and the rest
of creation, thus rendering biblical morality impossible -- which, she
claims, is the liberals' true goal. Tossing aside any pretense to
Christian charity, Coulter darkly warns that liberals (or Democrats, which
are, for Coulter, one and the same) are Pagans (of the Druid
denomination), science-hating Darwinists, and tree-hugging supporters of
PETA, intent on killing their babies and their grandparents. Some of her
invective, like proclaiming that Democrats make up "the opposition party
to God," might make even a Carl Schmitt blush!

A stalwart defender of what she takes to be the Christian faith, Coulter
emphatically denies the possibility of any liberal rapprochement with
Christianity. Moreover, liberals are theo-political heretics, enemies of
the state, "deny[ing] the biblical idea of dominion and progress, the most
ringing affirmation of which is the United States of America." (Such
statements, of course, raise serious questions concerning Coulter's
understanding of orthodox Christian doctrine.) In Coulter's world, it is
really the liberal pagans who cause all the trouble ("somehow it's always
the godless doing the genocides"), while devout Christians are peaceful,
moral, law-abiding folks. (Coulter conveniently omits the gloomy fact that
Christians have managed to slaughter many other Christians and
non-Christians well into modern times. Her memory returns, however, to
attack "crazy Muslims.")

Coulter's inflammatory rhetoric, proclivity for constructing straw men,
and reliance on specious and ad hominem argumentation obscures the fact
that her convictions aren't new. In a sense, Coulter is merely reiterating
the perennial quarrel between Reason and Revelation, Athens and Jerusalem,
Enlightenment and faith -- but here in the age of mass media, and for big
bucks. Given that the argument of the book is so derivative and so
littered with malicious half-truths and insipid humor, the book's
popularity might seem perplexing.

But then I considered the book's cover. The dust jacket of Godless
features Coulter in a black dress with a plummeting neckline, sporting an
apparently diamond-encrusted cross that dangles above the shadowy
suggestion of cleavage. (One wonders whether the diamonds represent the
indestructibility or the riches of her Church.) Her arm presses upon the
final letters of the book's title, "less," as through she might crush
them, a one-woman suppressor of the atheistic horde. She gazes at the
viewer, wearing a sly half-smile reminiscent of Leonardo da Vinci's Mona
Lisa -- an impression further enhanced by the resemblance in pose and
garb.

Ah-ha! I thought. This is no mere accident. Perhaps her book conceals a
secret teaching, one more shocking than those encountered in a Dan Brown
novel, and so inimical to the faithful that it could only be conveyed in
winks and nods. Given the American obsession with codes and hidden
meanings, I speculated that when Coulter writes of what "all liberals
secretly believe," she just may well be hinting to the discerning reader
that there is more to her text than what's on the surface.

As one who has studied with people who studied under Leo Strauss, and
attuned to the art of esoteric writing, I searched. And I searched. And
then I noticed, buried in a footnote, a "clue" to the entire work:
"Christians," Coulter writes, "include everyone who subscribes to the
Bible of the God of Abraham, including Jews and others." How very gracious
of her! But there is a catch: These "Christians" may not include members
of the Episcopalian Church -- which, she writes a few pages later, "is
barely even a church." HmmS(

Why does she go after the Episcopalian Church (aside, perhaps, from the
fact that arch-liberal Howard Dean used to be a member)? Here's one
conjecture arising from my esoteric reading. The Episcopalian Church
developed from the Church of England -- an established Church, a state
religion. Is Coulter, then, launching a cryptic attack on the unity of
church and state? Given this, as well as her dismissal of the substance of
theological differences (effacing, for instance, distinctions between
Christians and Jews), and her claim that true Christians are peaceful and
patriotic, one might think she is implicitly invoking the ideas propounded
by the theological-political treatises of the seventeenth century, ideas
like toleration and separation of religious and political authority -- you
know, Liberal ideas.

This esoteric reading of Godless is, of course, preposterous, but no more
so, in my opinion, than the book's actual argumentation -- and that's the
point. I'm afraid that the big secret revealed in Godless is that when it
comes to the depths and complexities of actual religion, Ann Coulter
doesn't know what she's talking about.

Jerome Eric Copulsky is Assistant Professor and Director of Judaic Studies
at Virginia Tech.

----------

Jesusless: The Church of Conservatism
-- Robert S. McElvaine

In Godless, her latest and most ill-tempered book-length rant, Ann Coulter
asserts that liberalism is a "godless" religion. In fact, however, the
most fundamental problem in Christianity in America and the world today is
that the "fundamentalist" religion that most loudly proclaims itself to be
"Christian" is Jesusless.

Coulter demonstrates how Jesusless she and her cohort who have co-opted
the name of Christianity are when she identifies "Americans' Christian
destiny" as "jet skis, steak on the electric grill, hot showers, and night
skiing." For some reason, she fails to cite her source in the Gospels for
her definition of Christian destiny, which amounts to: Jesus died for our
jet skis.

Read the Gospels from beginning to end and nowhere will you find Jesus
suggesting anything like what Coulter sees as the destiny of Christians.
Quite the contrary. Indeed, there is no source in anything Jesus said for
most of what the best-known "Christians" preach in his name these days.
While Coulter fumes that "liberalism is the opposition party to God," the
clear truth is that what passes for "Christianity" today is the opposition
party to Jesus. She attacks "the liberal hostility to God-based religions"
while exposing her own hostility to Jesus-based religion.

As has been widely reported, Coulter offers "Christian" sentiments about
widows of 9/11 victims who are not on her side politically: "These broads
are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in
their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzis," the millionaire
TV celebrity and right-wing lioness Coulter hisses. "I've never seen
people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much." If Jesus had remained in
his grave, surely he would be spinning in it to hear such evil venom being
spit out in his name.

"Christians" of the sort who buy Coulter's books call themselves
"fundamentalists," but their emphasis is entirely upon the word's first
syllable; they're all about having fun. But when it comes to the
fundamental teachings of Jesus, they take a pass. Turn the other cheek?
Self-sacrifice? Help the poor? Nonviolence? That stuff's too hard. They
replace the Gospel accounts of what Jesus said with the Gospel according
to John and Paul (Lennon and McCartney, that is): "Give me money / That's
what I want."

The Church of Coulter -- and that of the loudest "Christians" today --
should be called what it plainly is: Jesusless: The Church of Mammon.
Coulter makes millions by calling others treasonous and Godless and
saying, "We should invade [Muslim] countries, kill their leaders and
convert them to Christianity." Conversion should start at home, and
Coulter first needs to convert herself from Mammonism to Christianity.
Like many others in the increasingly dominant and totally misnamed
"Christian Right," Coulter has a persecution complex. Upon the publication
of Godless, she used her syndicated column to write a self-review of her
book, saying it would be ignored: "If you find Godless without asking for
assistance, it's considered a minor miracle." This from a woman whose new
Jesusless book was at that very moment rising to Number 1 on the New York
Times Best Seller list. (That such a patently anti-Jesus book could become
the best-selling book in America tells us just how far removed from being
followers of Christ most of today's self-proclaimed Christians are.) She's
lamenting all the way to the bank, her house of worship.

In my opinion, those who complain about a "War on Christianity" are right.
The generals conducting that war include, in addition to
Kill-a-Muslim-for-Christ Coulter, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Ted
Haggard, James Dobson, and the whole Unheavenly Host of televangelists and
megachurch moneychangers and wolves in sheep's clothing who have
expropriated the moral assets of Jesus and turned them to their own
purposes. They never met a dollar they didn't like. They prefer profits to
prophecy and pretend that Jesus did, too. They favor the rich over the
poor and invert Jesus to contend that he did, too. They favor war over
peace and lie by saying that Jesus did, too.

Coulter and millions of her fellow adherents to ChristianityLite -- a
"religion" that is the equivalent of a "Lose weight without diet or
exercise" scam ("Easy Jesus! Be saved without sacrifice or good works!")
-- have aborted Jesus and rewritten his teachings to suit their own
selfish desires. Their revision of the Beatitudes -- what we might call
the Be-Ann-itudes -- goes something like this:

Blessed are the haughty in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are those who exult over others, for they shall be further
rewarded. Blessed are the arrogant, for they shall inherit the earth.
Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for domination, for they shall be
satisfied. Blessed are those who show no mercy, for they shall obtain the
wealth of others. Blessed are the hard in heart, for they shall see God.
Blessed are the war-makers, for they shall be called sons of God.
Blessed are those who persecute for their own sake, for theirs is the
kingdom of heaven. Blessed are you when you revile others and persecute
others and utter all sorts of evil against them falsely on my account.
Onward Jesusless "Christian" soldiers, marching others into war.

Robert S. McElvaine teaches history at Millsaps College and is the author
of Eve's Seed (McGraw-Hill). He is currently completing a book manuscript
entitled ChristianityLite: Getting to Heaven without the Hassle.
----------

The Religion and Culture Web Forum for June features "Religious Identities
of Latin American Immigrants in Chicago: Preliminary Findings from Field
Research" by Andrea Althoff. To read this article, please visit:
http://marty-center.uchicago.edu/webforum/index.shtml,

----------

Sightings comes from the Martin Marty Center at the University of Chicago
Divinity School.

Submissions policy
Sightings welcomes submissions of 500 to 750 words in length that seek to
illuminate and interpret the forces of faith in a pluralist society.
Previous columns give a good indication of the topical range and tone for
acceptable essays. The editor also encourages new approaches to issues
related to religion and public life.

Attribution
Columns may be quoted or republished in full, with attribution to the
author of the column, Sightings, and the Martin Marty Center at the
University of Chicago Divinity School. Contact information
Please send all inquiries, comments, and submissions to Jeremy Biles,
managing editor of Sightings, at sightings-***@listhost.uchicago.edu.
Subscribe, unsubscribe, or manage your subscription at the Sightings
subscription page.
--
Faithfully,
Gene Poole

http://grace.break.at

God is still speaking
http://www.stillspeaking.com
=============
Remove your hat to e-mail me.
b***@juno.com
2006-07-05 03:21:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gene Poole
PETA, intent on killing their babies and their grandparents. Some of her
invective, like proclaiming that Democrats make up "the opposition party
to God," might make even a Carl Schmitt blush!
Even Howard Dean said that Republicans are a "Christian party." As long
as the Democrats support fetus slaughtering and gay sex, they will
remain the opposition party to God. It is not nearly as complicated as
you try to make it.
Post by Gene Poole
moral, law-abiding folks. (Coulter conveniently omits the gloomy fact that
Christians have managed to slaughter many other Christians and
non-Christians well into modern times. Her memory returns, however, to
attack "crazy Muslims.")
And you conveniently omit the gloomy fact that atheist communists
slaughtered probably a hundred million in the twentieth century.
Christians have only slaughtered as an exception to the rule, whereas
atheists have apparently made slaughtering their favorite pastime.

Liberals have to keep mentioning the same three things over and over
again, playing the same cards over and over (the Crusade card, the
Spanish Inqisition card, and the Salem Witch Trials card) and they
think that this helps their case. But the exceptions prove the rule.

The liberals would never mention these three unless they knew that
Christianity in general is non-violent. The power of their argument
rests precisely in the fact that Christians are NON-VIOLENT, and thus
are embarrased by these tiny abberations in Christian history.

You can't embarrass a truly violent person by telling them that they
used to be violent in the past. The only reason why mentioning the
Crusades works to embarrass a Christian, is because violence in all
it's forms are directly against what Christ taught.

Talk about a red herring!
Post by Gene Poole
Coulter's inflammatory rhetoric, proclivity for constructing straw men,
and reliance on specious and ad hominem argumentation obscures the fact
that her convictions aren't new. In a sense, Coulter is merely reiterating
the perennial quarrel between Reason and Revelation, Athens and Jerusalem,
Enlightenment and faith -- but here in the age of mass media, and for big
bucks. Given that the argument of the book is so derivative and so
littered with malicious half-truths and insipid humor, the book's
popularity might seem perplexing.
Oh my. Am I to understand that you are resurrecting the bewhiskered
false dichotomy between "the enlightenment" and faith? You are about
300 years out of date.
Post by Gene Poole
But then I considered the book's cover. The dust jacket of Godless
features Coulter in a black dress with a plummeting neckline, sporting an
apparently diamond-encrusted cross that dangles above the shadowy
suggestion of cleavage. (One wonders whether the diamonds represent the
indestructibility or the riches of her Church.) Her arm presses upon the
final letters of the book's title, "less," as through she might crush
them, a one-woman suppressor of the atheistic horde. She gazes at the
viewer, wearing a sly half-smile reminiscent of Leonardo da Vinci's Mona
Lisa -- an impression further enhanced by the resemblance in pose and
garb.
The above paragraph is a ridiculous ad hominem argument. You are
showing a bit of hypocrisy, since you attack her book as using ad
hominem arguments. This causes your credibility to go way down.
Post by Gene Poole
Why does she go after the Episcopalian Church (aside, perhaps, from the
fact that arch-liberal Howard Dean used to be a member)? Here's one
conjecture arising from my esoteric reading. The Episcopalian Church
developed from the Church of England -- an established Church, a state
religion. Is Coulter, then, launching a cryptic attack on the unity of
church and state?
No. It is you who are launching a cryptic attack on rational thinking.
Then again, the attack is not very cryptic. Your logical fallacies are
hanging out there for us all to see!

Perhaps you are attempting to poke fun at yourself. If so, then we can
all have a good laugh and head back to the bar for another round.


Given this, as well as her dismissal of the substance of
Post by Gene Poole
theological differences (effacing, for instance, distinctions between
Christians and Jews), and her claim that true Christians are peaceful and
patriotic, one might think she is implicitly invoking the ideas propounded
by the theological-political treatises of the seventeenth century, ideas
like toleration and separation of religious and political authority -- you
know, Liberal ideas.
"Liberal" at that time period, meant what "republicanism" means today.
Liberalism simply meant those who were against Monarchist governments.
Republicans these days, when they are being good, treat the Federal
Government much like Jefferson treated the British Crown.

What passes for "liberalism" these days is a hideous amalgam of
socialist/communist/paternalistic/monarchist government, with a few
pinches of anti-Christian bigotry and fetus slaughtering thrown in to
keep down the surplus population.

Liberalism as espoused by the Democrats is pretty much a "to do list"
if somebody wanted Western Civ to commit suicide.
Post by Gene Poole
Jerome Eric Copulsky is Assistant Professor and Director of Judaic Studies
at Virginia Tech.
Wow, this guy is actually a professor? What, a professor of comedy and
self-satire? Hope he isn't getting any of my tax money.
Chris Smith
2006-07-06 02:19:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@juno.com
Even Howard Dean said that Republicans are a "Christian party." As long
as the Democrats support fetus slaughtering and gay sex, they will
remain the opposition party to God. It is not nearly as complicated as
you try to make it.
Some changes in the Democratic party platform are certainly long past
due. And as long as the Republican party continues to support economic
exploitation, continuation of poverty and discrimination, and the
devaluation of human dignity, and exploiting moral concerns by opposing
abortion only until it comes down to providing affordable health care or
effective education in preventing unwanted pregnancies, they will
continue to be the "other" opposition party to God -- or, in any case,
to 90% of everything Jesus said. Wow, suddenly it's all more
complicated. Oh... yeah, I remember someone who got it right, now. It
started something like this: "For all have sinned..."
Post by b***@juno.com
The liberals would never mention these three unless they knew that
Christianity in general is non-violent. The power of their argument
rests precisely in the fact that Christians are NON-VIOLENT, and thus
are embarrased by these tiny abberations in Christian history.
Unfortunately, the truth seems to be that although Christianity is non-
violent, there's something in the human psyche that tempts us to take
*any* group affiliation and find a way to be violent about it, and
religion is certainly no exception. I guess we'll have to keep doing
the hard work of challenging people to live up to the Christian
religion, instead of claiming the easy victory by associating
Christianity with arbitrary creations of human beings... like, say,
political parties.
--
Chris Smith - Lead Software Developer / Technical Trainer
MindIQ Corporation
B.G. Kent
2006-07-06 02:20:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@juno.com
Post by Gene Poole
PETA, intent on killing their babies and their grandparents. Some of her
invective, like proclaiming that Democrats make up "the opposition party
to God," might make even a Carl Schmitt blush!
Even Howard Dean said that Republicans are a "Christian party." As long
as the Democrats support fetus slaughtering and gay sex, they will
remain the opposition party to God. It is not nearly as complicated as
you try to make it.
B - LOL! oh for goodness sakes.......it is this kind of post that makes me
think you would fit right in there with the Muslim Fundamentalists who
kill in the name of God. God is not a Republican or Democrat....how small
you want to make God.

Blessings of better insight.

Bren

Loading...