Ann Coulter is often touted by the neo-conservative Republican Christian Right as a respectable spokesperson for their views. I just read an interview with her which I link below and then respond to. My thoughts and musings are added in parenthesis’. I edited out a few of the exchanges and changed a couple of her parenthesis’ into commas to keep my thoughts clearly separate. I include a link to the original article as a comparative resource:
BeliefNet.com Interview with Ann Coulter
Ann Coulter, a constitutional lawyer turned conservative pundit, makes her living saying outrageous things about what she deems the outrages of the left. She is the author of five best-selling liberal-bashing books, including her latest, â€œGodless: The Church of Liberalism,â€ in which she argues that liberalism is a form of atheistic religion. Beliefnet editor Charlotte Allen recently interviewed Coulter via email.
You title your book â€œGodless.â€ Are all liberals atheists?
No, but it increases the odds. (Source, links Ann?)
What portion of liberals would you say are religious in the more conventional sense of the word: Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, even Wiccans?
Hmmm, so you consider Wiccans â€œreligiousâ€¦ in the conventional senseâ€? That would definitely get liberalsâ€™ numbers up! Iâ€™d have no way of knowing (that would require research), but make no mistake: Liberals are everywhere, in every religion, denomination and spiritual practiceâ€“especially Wiccans! (That’ll play well in inspiring fear and loathing among the uneducated, red state voters).
Weâ€™ve done some polls here at Beliefnet, and a surprising number of Democrats at least say they are religious. Some 61 percent say they pray daily and 72 percent attend worship services once a month or more. How would you explain that?
Just curious: What percentage of them know which Testament the Book of Job is in? (It is in the Old Testament. Coulter asks a question as a baseless accusation, without any statistical link or traceable source).
When you say that most liberals donâ€™t believe in God, what is your evidence? According to a Fox News poll last year, 92 percent of Americans believe in God. And nearly half of Americans voted Democratic in the 2004 election. So doesnâ€™t that suggest that most liberals do believe in God?
First let me say that I think itâ€™s terrific to hear a journalist citing a Fox News poll as authoritative evidence and would like to encourage this development (as would all loyal Neo-con propagandists more interested in their agenda being pushed forth than actual fact-based journalism). I donâ€™t say â€œmost liberals donâ€™t believe in Godâ€; I say liberalism is a godless religion. Some liberals donâ€™t understand the underlying religious dogma and principles of liberalismâ€“if they did, they would flee the building.
You write: â€œLiberalism is a comprehensive belief system denying the Christian belief in manâ€™s immortal soul.â€ (I am a politically progressive christian who believes in each human being possessing an immortal soul. I state this inclusively of men and women, although Ms. Coulter does give me just pause to reconsider my own beliefs) Yet our Beliefnet polls show that 58.7% of Democrats believe in life after death. Doesnâ€™t that disprove your statement?
No, I think it proves itâ€“58.7% of all Democrats? Thatâ€™s pathetic. (Anyone who disagrees with Ms. Coulter is considered “pathetic” from her perspective) Also, you forgot to ask them the follow-up question: Is that because you hope to come back as a snail darter?
Will most liberals go to hell or heaven?
I really canâ€™t improve on Jesusâ€™ words: â€œMake every effort to enter through the narrow door, because many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able to.â€ (How clear is the hypocrisy of “christian” Ann Coulter being lockstep supportive without question of an administration that openly condones the use of torture and denying detainees and prisoners of war their Geneva Convention and Nuremberg Principles protections? Jesus of Nazareth, whose country was occupied by a foreign power, was arrested in the middle of the night, taken away from friends and family, rendered from place to place, tried without being afforded due process in line with the laws of his own country nor the laws of his occupiers, convicted, tortured, publicly shamed and put to death. Who would Jesus torture, Ann?)
You cite opposition to the death penalty as a key tenet of the Church of Liberalism. Yet Pope John Paul II stated that the death penalty should be rarely, if ever, applied: only â€œin cases of absolute necessity.â€ How do you square this with your assertion that â€œadoration of violent criminalsâ€ is the main factor behind opposition to the death penalty?
I agree with the pope. I also believe that it is an â€œabsolute necessityâ€ to execute cold-blooded murderers (Does that include 9/11 insider conspirators as well as those whose policies are leading to torturing detainees to death and whose pre-war lies led to hundreds of thousands of innocent lives being lost for their profits and the profits of their cronies?) and, rapists, and child molesters. (Does that include any of the following Republicans, Ann, or just “liberal perpetrators”?:
or those who let Jack Abramoff pay for travel overseas to the Marianas Islands in order to have sex with underage prostitutes? :
As your own question indicates, opposition to the death penalty is not a â€œkey tenetâ€ of even Catholicism. That would be a difficult position to maintain inasmuch as God himself commanded the Israelites to go to certain cities and kill every living thing. If memory serves, the pope was also opposed to abortion. Liberals are not. (Not even close to universally true, actually. Very few Americans, liberal or otherwise, believe in abortion-upon-demand without restrictions. Very few Americans support a comprehensive abortion ban either.) How would you explain opposition to the death penalty for heinous murderers, but not for innocent children? (Ummm… I am opposed to the death penalty for heinous murderers as well as opposed to the death penalty for innocent children… You might want to re-write this paragraph Ann).
You say that the Episcopal Church is â€œbarely even a church.â€ Why?
Because itâ€™s become increasingly difficult to distinguish the pronouncements of the Episcopal Church from the latest Madonna video. (Another completely unsubstantiated, stridently specious and grossly inaccurate smear – the Coulter specialty).
Are churches that donâ€™t agree with your politics or religious beliefs not really churches?
Correct: Theyâ€™re called â€œmosques.â€ (Which are most often filled with brown-skinned people who hold different beliefs than Ms. Coulter, reasons to merit death by any means in CoulterWorld).
Actually, the answer to that question is contained in what those in the publishing industry refer to as the â€œtitleâ€ of my book, which is: â€œGodless: The CHURCH of Liberalism.â€ (Anyone who doesn’t agree with Ms. Coulter’s radical opinions is “godless” in her mind. It is indeed a narrow door. I would propose that the judgmentally intolerant might have a tough time squeezing through.)
In a footnote, you say: â€œThroughout this book I often refer to Christian and Christianityâ€¦but the term is intended to include anyone who subscribes to the Bible of the God of Abraham, including Jews and others.â€ Isnâ€™t it odd to define â€œChristiansâ€ as including people who are Jewish?
Yes, that would be very odd, but Iâ€™m doing nothing of the sort. Iâ€™m not defining Christians as Jews or Jews as Christians or zebras as elephants. Iâ€™m informing the reader that when I use the term â€œChristian,â€ I am using it to include anyone who believes in the God of Abraham because it got a little wordy to keep saying â€œChristians, Jews and anyone else who believes in the God of Abrahamâ€ throughout the book. I donâ€™t know how that could be any clearer. If everyone who believed in the God of Abraham were a Christian, I wouldnâ€™t have needed the footnote. (She adamantly states that she is not mixing christians with jews and then immediately attempts to explain and justify why she did it. The denial/justification isn’t just eerie and odd, it seems indicative of a deep-seated confusion bordering on mental illness. If she wanted to be more clear, she would have made a consistent distinction between “christians” and “jews”. Of course, linking Neo-con Republican christians with jews plays well with the Zionistic and militarily imperialistic political forces whom she serves over and above the patriotism and devotion to God that she gives lip service to. Oh, and by the way, Ann… muslims also are considered part of the “Abrahamic tradition” because they are among those who believe in the God of Abraham.)
And donâ€™t many people whom you would classify as belonging to the Church of Liberalism define themselves as Christian or Jewish? Jim Wallis of Sojourners and Michael Lerner of Tikkun claim to be applying authentic Christian and Jewish theology to political and social questions. Are such people not really Christians or Jews?
Yes, the percentage of liberals who define themselves as practicing Christians or Jews goes up in direct proportion to their proximity to elective office. (Neither Jim Wallis nor Michael Lerner hold political office, are seeking political office nor are they closely linked to anyone holding or seeking political office to my knowledge. How many times has Ms. Coulter visited the White House or met with Bush Administration officials?)
I cannot speak to individual casesâ€“only God knows who is truly following Himâ€“but claiming to be Jewish or Christian doesnâ€™t immunize one from bad ideologies. (AMEN, SISTER!!!) Some slaveholders claimed to be Christians, too. (As do many of those those who are fighting to keep the right to hire Mexicans at “slave wages” at the expense of American workers and are attacking Unions across America – hell bent on taking worker’s rights back a hundred years) Howard Dean, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Teddy Kennedy and John Kerry all belong to a church that believes itâ€™s okay to stick a fork in a babyâ€™s head. (Link? Source? Cite?) To the extent one is practicing liberalism, one is not practicing the religion of our Father. (One and one is two. Two and two are four, ergo sum… everyone who disagrees with me, Ann Coulter, is the anti-Christ).
Is it possible to be a good Christian and sincerely believe, as Jim Wallis does, that a bigger welfare state and higher taxes to fund it is the best way in a complex modern society for us to fulfill our Gospel obligation to help the poor?
Itâ€™s possible, but not likely. Confiscatory taxation enforced by threat of imprisonment is â€œstealing,â€ a practice strongly frowned upon by our Creator. (Anyone found guilty of tax evasion in America risks imprisonment. So all taxation is godless, Ann? The IRS is “of the beast?”) If all Christians and Jews tithed their income as the Bible commands, every poor person would be cared for, every naked person clothed and every hungry person fed. Read Marvin Olaskyâ€™s â€œThe Tragedy Of American Compassionâ€ for further discussion of this. (We might actually have something we agree on. I would be curious to see research into the tithing habits of Republican christians and Democratic christians. This would be tough with the wealthiest as so much is hidden from public eye and so many accountants play “cup and balls” magic tricks with their client’s finances).
You devote four of your eleven chapters to evolution, and say that Darwinâ€™s theory of evolution is â€œabout one notch above Scientology in scientific rigor.â€ So what do you think really happened? Did God create the world in six days? Did he create each species separately? Did he set a chain of causation in motion? Did he â€œcauseâ€ evolution in the sense that all the species are related to each other but God guided their descent?
These are unanswerable questionsâ€“except the latter. (NEWSFLASH!!! Ann Coulter labels as “unanswerable” questions about the veracity of Exodus 20:11!!!: “…for in six days Yahweh made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day …”) God did not â€œcauseâ€ evolution because evolution doesnâ€™t exist. (There is not a single peer-reviewed scientific study to my knowledge that questions the existence of intra-species evolution. Animals evolve over time inside of their own species. That is a universally accepted scientific fact proven many times over in many studies of many species. Inter-species evolution, in which the DNA of one species transforms into a new DNA conformation, such as ape-ape-ape-human, is the one that is questioned, debated and challenged in the scientific community. There does not exist, to my knowledge, scientific confirmation of this ever having taken place.) Thus, for example, He also didnâ€™t â€œcauseâ€ unicorns. (OUCH!!! conversation whiplash!!! Where the heck did THAT come from??!?!?) My faith and reason tell me that God created the world and Iâ€™m not particularly interested in the details. (Those darn facts are so problematic, aren’t they Ann?) Iâ€™ll find out when I meet my Maker. (By your own “death sentence” measure, if held accountable for your aiding and abetting this administration’s multiple war crimes and misdemeanors, that will come sooner rather than later and may be permanent in its effect on your soul).
Can there be such a thing as â€œintelligent designâ€ without a divine designer?
Yesâ€“you should read my book! (NEWSFLASH!!! ANN COULTER CLAIMS CREATION MAY NOT HAVE HAD A CREATOR!!!!) As I describe in my book, Cambridge astrophysicists Sir Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, as well as Francis Crick, winner of the Nobel Prize for his co-discovery of DNA, didnâ€™t believe in God, but realized Darwinâ€™s theory was a crock. (I am not immediately familiar with their work, but I strongly doubt that they used the word “crock” in their scientific critique of Darwin’s work.)
Many arguments in favor of Darwinian evolution strike me as actually being arguments against the existence of Godâ€“that is, why would a creator create tapeworms, disease viruses, and other bad things? Why do you think such things exist in a world of intelligent design?
Your question is incomprehensible. I assume you are trying to ask me: â€œWhy would God create tapeworms?â€
My answer is: God also created mosquitoes, which I hate. But purple martins love mosquitoes and would probably all starve without them. Itâ€™s kind of a â€œbig pictureâ€ thing. Of course that doesnâ€™t explain why He created Michael Moore. (Cheap shot… but at least she didn’t call him “fat”‘ this time. “Judgment is mine, sayeth Ann Coulter” ~Coulter 9:11) For that, I have no explanation. My guess is that disease, pestilence, and Michael Moore are all perversions of the good that God created, a result of sin entering the world through Adam and Eve. (Ms. Coulter appears to hold a canonical belief in the inerrant, literal truth of Genesis and the rest of the bible with the striking exception of Exodus).
While I agree with you that the â€œJersey Girlsâ€ turned themselves into political opportunists, one of your statements about them does strike me as over the top: â€œIâ€™ve never seen people enjoying their husbandsâ€™ deaths so much.â€ By contrast, you admit the genuine nature of Cindy Sheehanâ€™s grief, even though youâ€™re pretty hard on herâ€“and you havenâ€™t been criticized for what you said about her. Is there anything youâ€™ve said about the 9/11 widows that you wish you hadnâ€™t said?
(She ignores the first question question completely. Apparently she is happy to live with her quote â€œIâ€™ve never seen people enjoying their husbandsâ€™ deaths so much.â€ regarding American citizens who dare to insist that they have a right to know the whole truth from our “public servants” about why their husbands died in 9/11 in an attack on the World Trade Center Towers.)
Well as long as you bring it up, I think Cindy Sheehan is enjoying the celebrity status her sonâ€™s death afforded her too. Thanks for pointing that outâ€“Iâ€™ll correct it in the paperback edition.
(Is there no end to Ann Coulter’s lack of compassion?)
You make fun of journalists who predicted that AIDS would become a heterosexual threat: â€œItâ€™s been twenty years, and weâ€™re still waiting for that heterosexual outbreak.â€ While itâ€™s true that here in the U.S., AIDS is an overwhelmingly gay disease – about 80 percent – thatâ€™s not so true worldwide, especially in sub-Saharan Africa, where more than 40 percent, perhaps up to 48 percent, of those with HIV are women, according to U.N. figures. What do you make of that?
(One million Americans are living with HIV and 40,000 new infections happen each year. Twenty percent of that would be 200,000 heterosexuals living with HIV and 2,000 newly infected heterosexuals per year. What is the definition of “outbreak”? The Bush Administration/FoxNews pushes for us to be afraid of anthrax? Bird Flu? Mad Cow Disease? How many cases of each of those have been confirmed? Shall we bother Ann with that darned “truthiness” again?):
Same lie, different continentâ€“with the same evil consequence: Millions of lives being sacrificed on the altar of political correctness. Could we get back to Fox News polls and dispense with U.N. studies? (That darn truth having a definite liberal bias again, Ann?) AIDS is overwhelmingly spread by anal intercourse and dirty needles. In the U.S., dirty needles come mostly from junkies; in Africa, dirty needles come from medical workers. See, e.g.:
Craig Timberg, How AIDS in Africa Was Overstated, Washington Post
Michael Fumento, Why Is HIV So Prevalent in Africa
Michael Fumento, The African Heterosexual AIDS Myth
By the way, those journalists I make fun of were talking about AIDS in the U.S. So the above information is merely for your edification.
(And as a distraction from the point at hand, perhaps? Why are the only links she provides in an entire e-mail interview exchange not “on point”?)
You say: â€œThe core of environmentalism is that they hate mankind.â€ (Another statement she allows to stand by. Can anyone really continue to believe this is a rational human being?) But in February the National Association of Evangelicals, including such signers as Ted Haggard, James Dobson, and Chuck Colson, etc., issued a statement urging Christian stewardship of the environment, â€œcreation care,â€ and so forth. Are these people godless liberals who hate mankind?
Of course notâ€“but Iâ€™m beginning to suspect you are. As Dobson and Colson say: God asks us to be good stewardsâ€“a statement that presupposes we are stewards of the plants and the animals, they are not stewards of us, as liberals prefer. (One more ridiculous statement with no substantiation. It is purely divisive, baseless, hateful crap. She would be laughed out of any decent graduate school classroom.) We are commanded to worship the Creator of the environment, not the environment. As Jesus said, we are of â€œmore value than many sparrowsâ€ – Matthew 10:21.
You say youâ€™re a Christian. Do you think Jesus would want you to be nicer to your political opponents?
Who knows? (Should I even bother to begin quoting scripture here? Not only does Ms. Coulter ignore and deny any scientific fact that gets in the way of her baseless and calcified opinions, she selectively edits scripture that might challenge her to be more like Jesus Christ and less like Andrew Dice Clay.) Maybe Heâ€™ll say I was too tough or maybe Heâ€™ll chastise me for not being tough enough on those who hate Him. (Jesus’ final recorded words on the subject: “Forgive them, for they know not what they do.”) Ask the money-changers in the temple how â€œniceâ€ Jesus was. (One single example in which Jesus physically turned over tables of those who had set up profit-ventures in the temple of worship. Jesus definitely had strong opinions about those who mix profiteering with religion. How is the ‘spreading hatred in the name of Christ’ business going for you, Ann? Selling lots of books?) Maybe Heâ€™ll say I needed more jokes or fewer adjectives. Iâ€™ll just apologize for not getting it right and thank him for dying for my sins. (The classic evangelical “salvation switch” theological perversion in which everything is promised to be forgiven so any behavior can be justified).
If the Church of Liberalism lets you do anything you want, why do you think the divorce rate is higher in red states than in the godless blue states?
Assuming thatâ€™s true, probably because marriage is more popular in the red states than in the blue states and because of all the blue-staters living in the red states. (Interesting hypothesis. I won’t hold my breath waiting for her to back up this pipe dream with any facts or links or sources or statistics.)
Is it important to you as a woman to be standing up for positions that many people, especially liberals, think are unrepresentative of women: opposing abortion, favoring the death penalty, and so forth?
The answer to any question beginning â€œIs it important to you as a womanâ€ is: No. Itâ€™s important to me as a Christian and an American to take the positions I take, but I would hold the same positions if I were a man. And by the way, despite your nearly mystical fascination with polls in earlier questions, you have apparently not brushed up on the abortion polls if you think opposition to abortion is â€œunrepresentative of women.â€ No matter who takes the poll or how the questions are asked, women almost always oppose abortion more than men do. Abortion is a convenience for men who want to be able to have sex with women without consequence. Women love and protect children.
(Men bad. Women good. Ann Coulter was never more real than with those last two statements. I’ll pay for the counseling Ann, please, just go… work out your hatred for half the human race.)
Godless menâ€“like Herod in Jesusâ€™ time, the Pharaoh in Mosesâ€™ time, and Bill Clinton in our timeâ€“target babies for destruction.
(White phospherous bombs target babies for destruction. Apparently babies that live near oil fields and pipelines are especially guilty and must be put to death indescriminantly by the Rumsfeld/Bush war machine. Godless men such as Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, and George W. Bush target babies for destruction daily, aided and abetted by God-less women such as Condoleezza Rice and Ann Coulter.)
As a woman, do you long for that source of great fulfillment for many women: a husband, a family? Or do you see your lifeâ€™s vocation as primarily in the public arena?
As a journalist, do you long to have a sense of decorum? Or do you see your lifeâ€™s vocation as primarily asking strangers utterly inappropriate personal questions?
(Oooooohhhhhh… touched a nerve there, didn’t she? I didn’t see that as a particularly invasive question. Am I wrong? When I am asked why I am not married in public, I do not feel threatened, nor do I get instantly defensive.)
I found your book enormously entertaining. But when I finished, I asked myself: What was the point of this book? What would you say the point of â€œGodlessâ€ is?
It is a clarion call, a flashing neon sign warning people that liberalism is the opposition party to God. And by the way, I had the same reaction the first time I read the Bible: Sure, itâ€™s fascinating and wise and full of important information, but what was the point of it exactly?
(In Ann Coulter’s mind, Bible = Ann Coulter’s book)
What does it mean to be a good Christian, and do you consider yourself to be a good Christian?
To believe with all your heart at every moment that God loved a wretch like you so much that he sent his only son to die for your sins. Most of the time, Iâ€™m an extraordinarily good Christian. (Wow. Quite a statement. Sounds like most of the time, she doesn’t need a saviour.)
Whatâ€™s your favorite Bible verse, if you have one, besides â€œBy their fruits you shall know themâ€?
I donâ€™t have a favorite, theyâ€™re all pretty good. Among some I like are:
So do not be afraid of them. There is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known. (So there is hope for the Jersey Girls that they will get from God what has been refused to them from the Bush Administration?) What I tell you in the dark, speak in the daylight; what is whispered in your ear, proclaim from the roofs. Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell. – Matthew 10: 26-28
Do you have a favorite prayer?
Yes, as our Creator taught us: â€œOur Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy nameâ€¦â€ and so on.
(Yes, Lord… Deliver us from evil… www.ImpeachforPeace.org)