Why does Ann Coulter call Liberalism a church? She explains how many liberal beliefs can't be proven and must be taken on faith. Faith is religion. Here is what the back of the book says:
"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.' ”"
Coulter makes some very good points while discussing liberal views on many subjects. There are the typical hot spots; abortion being a big one, crime is another, government schools and teacher's unions, the environment, embryonic vs. adult stem cell research, AIDS, etc.
She makes some very good points, but then with many of them she walks right off the cliff into a canyon of "gone-too-far".
What are some that I found to be interesting?
The Cindy Sheehan/Jersey Girls way of debate. 9/11 happened. Iraq happened. Liberals advanced their causes using these emotinal women who have suffered a loss. It is difficult to show your differences with someone in this situation without them being able to point at you and say "You hate grieving mothers", or some such equal nonsense. Used by both sides I am sure.
I remember the huge AIDS scare fromt he 1980s. AIDS was found in homosexuals and intravenous drug users but it was going to jump into the heterosexual population and devastate us. Oprah was spouting the liberal line of how one in five heterosexual people were going to be dead from AIDS by 1990. I guess not. I think I missed the story about how 20% of the population died. Where is the massive increase in heterosexual AIDS cases? According to this book the huge majority of AIDS cases in America were and are still within the homosexual population and among intravenous drug users. Sure, there are some others, but seriously far from the end-of-the-world predictions made by liberals in the 80s.
She spends quite a bit of time on Darwinism. Believe in God or not, Darwinism is a joke. It is nothing but conjecture and theory. When i went to school it was taught as theory. Now it is being taught as fact and liberals fight to the death over it. One scam after the other has been exposed. The fossil record contradicts evolution. Coulter goes through item after item of why Darwinism is ridiulous, what Darwinists make up next when something is disproved, and why the Darwinists cling to this theory with all their might. I already knew much of the specific items she discussed. I learned some new ones along the way.
Darwin must be true in order for liberals to say there is no God. How can people be true to the State if there is a God, a higher power, to exalt? The State must be the be-all end-all for the people in order for liberalism to mean anything at all. I agree with that logic. I think liberals want a more powerful central government to control the people in what is always said to promote the common good. The State will take care of everyone. Darwinism helps promote that goal by trying to eliminate faith in God. Whatever.
It's funny how it actually takes more faith in the unknown to believe Darwinism than it does to believe in God, but the Darwiniacs point at Christians and say they are backwards and stupid. Say what you want. Believe what you want. What I found so far in my life is that the people who want to believe in Darwinism will fight to keep their belief beyond reason. They will talk of science and the scientific method and then disregard the information found using their own tools.
FYI...I wrote much more about this book. It all disappeared. I am not going to type it all again. Whatever.
Though there was certainly a lot of hype around AIDS (as there is around all diseases; fear and hysteria are not political phenomena), there are also two significant reasons why it didn't turn out to be as bad as predicted. 1) education and protection proliferated and people became more careful about their sexual practices. 2) Science and the medicine industry have found ways to significantly reduce the impact of HIV so that it is no longer a death sentence. In effect, we beat AIDS (that's going a little too far, but you get the point).
ReplyDeleteAlso, the idea that the belief in evolution contradicts the belief in God is false. Darwin himself was a deeply religious and faithful man and so are many who believe in his theory.
Nice new background, btw!
I agree with your assessment of AIDS. Education about the disease made a world of difference and medical practices have helped. Her point was that the disease never made the jump to the heterosexual community, but is still within the others. I am not saying I agree with her inuendo that AIDS is a homosexual male and drug abuser disease, but the point that the practices of these two groups of people tend to keep the disease around has some merit. I do not have all the facts. I am just relaying what this one book said on the subject. I see her point if you look at America, but what I see in Africa has nothing to do with drugs or homosexuality.
ReplyDeleteI don't think evolution contradicts God. It can't. She even says that the investigation into the theory proves Gods existance more than it proves evolution. The problem is that liberals (some of them anyway) are using evolution as factual science that they say proves there is no God. We have gone so far as to teach evolution in our schools as fact, when it is based entirely in a faith that it is true and have outlawed the teaching of intelligent design. This is done in the name of seperation of church and state. I have a faith in God. They have a faith in Darwin. That is what she was going on about. Why is OK to "lie" to our children about one faith and not "lie" to them about other opinions? She chases this issue around until it becomes something the liberals use to indoctrinate children into the State religion.
That is what I mean when I say she has good points and makes good arguements with much of it...and then she takes it so far that it becomes like Roswell or the JFK assassination.
I went into a lot more detail with this in my original post, but it disappeared. Ugh.
I loved the new background. I almost went with a beach scene, but this one was just too amazing to pass up.
By the way, I do not hate liberals. I have plenty of liberal friends. I just disagree with them a lot. It makes for some interesting conversation.
Thanks for the comments. At least i know someone is reading. :-)
It is totally inaccurate to say that Darwin was a deeply religious and faithful man, when in fact he fluctuated in his beliefs for most of his adult life. Though he never claimed to believe in God nor to be an atheist, he admitted his beliefs were closer to being agnostic than anything else. Darwin played it safe for the longest time. Why do you think he postponed publishing the Origin of Species for so many years? He knew the impact on religious faith would be unprecedented.
ReplyDeleteSo it is not fair to say that evolution does not contradict God, because the fact that evolution does occur implies an absence of a creator who has an active role in our earthly lives. Evolution implies that if there is a god or gods, then they are either indifferent or AWOL.
it is true to some extent that believing in the theory of evolution implies a kind of belief. but unlike religious faith, which is a belief in something whose existence has not been proven, there is wealth of factual evidence to support the theory of evolution. intelligent has absolutely no business being taught in schools.
The problem that Ms. Coulter wrote about concerning evolution and liberals wanting to "kill" God in order to bring children under the religion of the State had some arguements that were used in the above comment. That is what she is saying is the problem. There is no meaningful dialog. There are liberals making claims and discounting all other opinions as silly and stupid. Scientists get fired for having an opinion. Teachers get fired for having an opinion. Students get chastised for having an opinion. All because removing a belief in God from society through evolution is needed in order to promote a greater need for the government nanny.
ReplyDeleteOne: If evolution does not contradict God then you are saying in the case that evolution is true then God is gone.
Two: In the same sentence you say "the fact that evolution does occur".
When did it become fact and therefore allow the proclamation that God is MIA?
Making a statement does not make the statement true.
Three: Where is this wealth of factual evidence?
From the evidence I have read I see more and more doubt and dissenting opinion being cast upon the entire theory Darwin proposed. The more detail I read about in the cosmos, inside cells, about the fossil record, about the hoaxes disproved that "prove" Darwinism, etc, the more it shows Darwin wrong and the option of an intelligent designer is strengthened.
You would think that in 150 years since "The Origin of Species" was published that some scientist somewhere would be able to point to something somewhere and say "see!". But that is not the case. 150 years! Look at what men have done in that time. They can't show us that there is anything out there proving the theory?
Behold! Piltdown Man! Hoax. Along with others.
Our children are not being taught the truth? Not teaching Intelligent Design in school? Fine. At least teach them the truth about the theory of evolution.
From Coulter's book, the truth includes:
"...the truth about the entire fossil record, which shows a very non-Darwinian progression, noticeably lacking the vast number of transitional species we ought to see
...the truth about the Cambrian explosion, in which virtually all the animal phyla suddenly appeared, with no Darwinian ancestors
...the truth about the Galapagos finch population changing not one bit since Darwin first observed the finches more than 170 years ago
...the truth about the peppered moth experiment
...the truth about Haeckel's embryos being a fraud perpetrated by a leading German eugenicist
...the truth about the Miller-Urey experiment being based on premises that are no longer accepted
...the truth about the nonexistence of computer simulations of the evolution of the eye"
Now, all you teachers, go grab the science text book from your school. What is it teaching?
What else does Coulter say? The next comments, if any, will be something about how I must believe in God. Therefore I am just some ignorant religious type and my arguements will be discounted while society continues to teach a theory to our children as if it is fact. Continue to teach one non-factual theory and attack intelligent design for having the very faith you require to believe evolution is true.
I find something very interesting. I make a lot of posts on FaceBook. Most of it is political. Sometimes it is about faith.
The same thing has happened here that happens there. It is amazing. I have made fifty something posts this year on this blog. I have made hundreds on Facebook. Nobody comments. They may read it, though probably not.
Once the subject of God comes up and is one of those hot buttons for the liberal agenda, well, the comments start flowing. It amazes me.
hey it's a hot topic, and admittedly both sides have shown embarassing reactionary behaviour. If I put myself on the religious side, I can understand the fear that "the darwinist agenda" is being pushed on school kids. I have read countless arguments from both sides. this is not the best venue for a debate, but it's not surprising that Ann Coulter has her "thought" provoking opinions on the matter.
ReplyDeleteAgreed on the reactions of both sides...on most issues.
ReplyDelete