On The 700 Club, Coulter accused liberals of "fak[ing] a belief in God," repeated evolutionary falsehoods
SUMMARY: On The 700 Club, Ann Coulter accused liberals of "trying to fake a belief in God" in order to court religious voters and stated that liberals have "admitted they are godless." Further, Coulter and co-host Gordon Robertson repeated many of the false and misleading claims regarding evolutionary theory that appear in Coulter's latest book and have been debunked by Media Matters for America.
In an interview on the July 21 edition of the Christian Broadcasting Network's The 700 Club, right-wing pundit Ann Coulter accused liberals of "trying to fake a belief in God" in order to court religious voters and claimed that by purportedly not challenging the title of her new book, Godless: The Church of Liberalism (Crown Forum, June 2006), liberals have "admitted they are godless." Further, Coulter and co-host Gordon Robertson repeated many of the false and misleading claims regarding evolutionary theory that appear in her book and have been debunked by Media Matters for America.
In an introductory segment that aired prior to the interview, CBN senior correspondent Paul Strand reported that Coulter, in her new book, asserts that "anti-religious liberalism has actually become, in itself, a religion." Strand went on to note that she "explains how abortion is its sacrament; Roe v. Wade its holy writ; public school teachers its clergy; and Darwinism its liberal creation myth."
Robertson conducted the subsequent interview with Coulter, in which he noted that she has "been taking it on the chin" as of late and described the strategy of those criticizing her as "the old, you know, 'If you can't attack the message, go after the messenger and hope to win that way.' "
When Robertson remarked that Democrats do not like to be labeled the "godless party," Coulter claimed that liberals have "admitted" that she is correct in labeling them "godless" because liberal criticism of her book has focused on her attacks on 9-11 widows: "I think I would have noticed if somebody called me godless," she said. "But I really haven't heard people protest about that. No, they're upset about what I say about the Jersey Girls. ... So I think we are all on record now: Officially, liberals have admitted they are godless and don't even mind it." Coulter went on to say that Democrats often discuss how to attract the "believer vote," but that "[t]he way to do that ... is to be a believer and not to keep trying to fake a belief in God."
Turning to the two chapters in Coulter's book devoted to Darwinism, Robertson marveled at how "effective" her arguments are in disproving the theory of evolution. "I thought I was fairly informed," Robertson said. "But I confess, your book taught me new arguments that I hadn't had in my arsenal before." Coulter described evolutionary theory as a "myth" and part of liberals' "religious faith" and, in the ensuing discussion, repeated several of the "misleading claims, pseudo-scientific arguments, distortions of evolutionary theory, and outright falsehoods" recently debunked at length by Media Matters. These include:
- Biological evolution cannot explain how the eye was formed.
- The "Cambrian explosion" disproves the theory of evolution.
- No evidence exists of transitional species.
Robertson joined Coulter in falsely arguing that "there's no fossil record of transitional species," and even repeated her highly misleading claim that the fossil record of bats supports this argument.
From the July 21 edition of the Christian Broadcasting Network's The 700 Club:
ROBERTSON: Well, last year, Democratic Party chairman Howard Dean called Republicans a white, Christian party. Our next guest says many liberals have embraced yet another religion entirely. Paul Strand explains.
[begin video clip]
STRAND: By the time the 1992 Democratic Convention rolled around, when broken down by religion, the largest block of delegates was not religious at all, and identified themselves as --
GERAULD DE MAIO: Seculars, self-identified seculars. Defined as atheist, agnostics, and those with no religious preference.
STRAND: Social scientist Gerauld de Maio and Louis Bolce have been tracking this trend. Turns out, in every presidential election since 1992, about 70 to 80 percent of the secular liberals vote for the Democratic candidate. And what de Maio and Bolce say the media miss is how many of the Democrats, secularists, and liberals have come to actually loathe religious conservatives. For instance in 2000:
LOUIS BOLCE: Thirty-five percent of Gore's, Al Gore's total vote among whites came from people who intensely dislike evangelical Christians.
STRAND: Ann Coulter's new book Godless looks at how this contempt for people of God, and especially all they believe in, has taken secularists and liberals to an ironic place. Their anti-religious liberalism has actually become, in itself, a religion. Coulter explains how abortion is its sacrament; Roe v. Wade its holy writ; public school teachers its clergy; and Darwinism its liberal creation myth.
[end video clip]
ROBERTSON: Well, Ann Coulter joins us now live from New York to talk about her new book, Godless. Ann, you've been taking it on the chin, here. I thought we sort of had the corner on the market for being beat up by the press. But you seem to have taken your own lumps lately. How do you feel about all that?
COULTER: Happy to deflect some of the heat from you.
ROBERTSON: Well, I guess -- come on in, the water is warm.
COULTER: Well, as you know, we kind of think it's macho as Christians, since it was predicted we would be hated.
ROBERTSON: You've taken a strong stand for your faith in this book. You know, are you saying that's the reason that there seems to be -- I mean, there seems to be a lot of venom directed your way these days?
COULTER: Yes, yes. But like I say, Christians think that is macho.
ROBERTSON: All right, well, you seem to be able to take it. The Democrats these days seem to be taking a lot of steps to try to open themselves up to Christians. They don't like the label, "the godless party." You know, Howard Dean has made some missteps in his efforts. [Sen. Barack] Obama [D-IL] seems to be doing well with it. What do you think of their efforts so far?
COULTER: Well, first of all, I do want to point out that they really haven't complained about the title of my book. I think I would have noticed if somebody called me godless. But I really haven't heard people protest about that. No, they're upset about what I say about the Jersey Girls. But, oh, yeah, OK, we're all godless. So I think we all are on record now, officially liberals have admitted they are godless and don't even mind it. Maybe they are saying who-less. And as for their attempts to win believers over, they know they need the votes of Christians and you always hear them talking about how, "Gosh, how do we get the believer vote?" The way to do that I think is to be a believer and not to keep trying to fake a belief in God. Their results have not been very impressive in the past, as when Howard Dean was running for president and proposed to reporters, you know, "Let's talk religion," and one of the reporters asked him to name his favorite part of the New Testament, and he cited the Book of Job. So they really got to start placing the Book of Job in the correct testament to appeal to actual believers, I suspect.
ROBERTSON: You spend a lot of time on Darwinism in your book, and I think that's one of the reasons you're getting so much heat here is how effective your arguments are. I thought I was fairly informed. But I confess, your book has taught me some new arguments here that I hadn't had in my arsenal before. And I congratulate you for it. I think your book is a tour de force. It's something I recommend to everyone to read.
COULTER: Thank you. And by the way, they haven't argued with me directly on that either. I mean, the left really hates me. But no one seems to want to argue about the Darwinism. I mean, it's exactly like my defense of Joe McCarthy a couple of books back in Treason. Liberals build up this 50-year myth on Joe McCarthy in one case, on Darwinism in the other. And you know, I come along and say it's all a crock, and no one wants to argue back. If you read a single paragraph from my book in the Darwin chapters in a public school, the teacher would be fired -- would be banned from ever teaching again. But I go on -- it's about a third, a quarter of the book -- and no one wants to argue directly about it because it is a myth. It is part of their religious faith. There is no evidence for it -- not the evidence Darwin expected to find. It is what scientists refer to as a pseudoscience. There is nothing they will accept to disprove Darwin's theory. It's like tarot-card reading.
ROBERTSON: But isn't that why you are getting attacked? It's the old, you know, "If you can't attack the message, go after the messenger, and hope to win that way."
COULTER: I suspect that is part of it because Darwinism is obviously very important to liberals. They bring lawsuits whenever anyone mentions in a high school biology class, for example, the Cambrian explosion, where every animal, phyla appear in the blink of an eye -- no evolutionary process -- there it is, including the eye by the way, which they've never figured out how the eye could have evolved by natural mutation -- random mutation, and natural selection. Well, there it is -- the fossil record disproves it. But we can't mention the Cambrian explosion or the Chinese fossil bed that appeared before that. I mean, what you see over and over again with species is not the gradual change from one species to another, or even to create an all-new, novel biological form. You see a species appearing fully formed, minor adaptations for whatever it is -- a hundred million years -- and then poof, totally disappearing. Almost like there was a flood or something.
ROBERTSON: You're right. On a scientific basis, there's no fossil record of what transitional species or even transitional -- you know, how did we get a bat wing? There is no pre-bat wings in the fossil record.
COULTER: Right.
ROBERTSON: And we just seem to ignore that, conveniently.
COULTER: Well, they have little stories about how a bear fell into the ocean and became a whale. But we don't have the actual bear and the whale. And also, since they often play a sophistical game with this, they have species that could, in theory, be a transition between one animal and another. But as I say in the book, this is like saying, you know, Elton John looks like Janet Reno. Therefore Elton John gave birth to Janet Reno. They can't prove the descendent relationship. All they can do is find an odd-looking duck that looks like another duck. And in fact, the ones they have maintained were transitional species -- because other fossils will appear that disprove it -- tend to fall away. What you ought to have under the theory of random mutation and natural selection is a whole lot of transitional species or animals, far more than you have of the final product. In fact, there really never is a final product because we're always moving on to something better. You know, humans ought to be sprouting new wings and tails as we speak.
ROBERTSON: And you also, I will, I've got -- they are telling me we're out of time. I will end on this. You also point out, very cogently, that if same-sex beings tried to mate under natural selection, they should be automatically eliminated from the gene pool.
COULTER: That's right.
ROBERTSON: Yeah.
COULTER: Fortunately, the religion of liberalism believes in miracles, so they can hold together completely contradictory beliefs at one time.
ROBERTSON: So you can be biologically born that way, but at the same time the genetic code seems to indicate you would be automatically selected away --
COULTER: Right.
ROBERTSON: -- in the survival of the fittest just for the mere fact you do not reproduce.
COULTER: That's right.
ROBERTSON: Anyway, Ann, wonderful book again, thanks for being with us. If you need friends while you're being beat on, just, you know where to call.
COULTER: Thank you, great to be here.
I had the terrible misfortune of actually hearing this "interview." The nonstop lying is even worse when you hear it in her jaded baritone than it is when you read it. She's a disgrace to humanity.
ocean and became a whale?...........I guess that if you believed that the earth and all the creatures were created in 6 days that would be a little hard to swallow
"Well, first of all, I do want to point out that they really haven't complained about the title of my book."
There you go. See, all of you who think that ignoring this vile woman will make her go away, when you don't get upset about what she rights she goes on television and uses that as an admission. These people keep giving her an outlet, giving her credibility, and failure to correct her just lets her claim support for her "point".
Ignore her and she'll just go away. Right.
When she's just blathering on and on with ad hominem attacks--that's the time to ingore her.
But if she tries to get substantive on any issue, then it's time to nail her. You'll notice that when she strays from the attacks, she looks quite silly. Well, I guess she looks silly attacking also...
Check out this snippet between Robertson and a certain non-reproducing specimen known as Ann Coulter:
ROBERTSON: So you can be biologically born that way, but at the same time the genetic code seems to indicate you would be automatically selected away --
COULTER: Right.
ROBERTSON: -- in the survival of the fittest just for the mere fact you do not reproduce.
Irony is Dead, I tell you. Things are so absurd that satire cannot match the reality.
No I'm not. ;>)
I'm feeling much better. I think I'll go for a walk.
It's merely a scratch.
Your mother was a hampster and your father smells of elderberry. Now go away or I will taunt you a second time! ;>)
Nik Nik
It's a bit hilarious that Annie's nonsense about the 911 widows overshadowed the rest of her book completely. I don't even remember any discussion of the whole "liberals are godless" silliness. Back-fired on her. Now she's playing the "silence is an admission" card.
But I guess I'm getting off point.
It is so sad to see two people who heard of evolution but certainly know nothing about it discuss this topic as religious leaders did one century ago.
I am not sure what they try to sell, but it is neither evolution nor religion. However, they do sell ridicule and a combination between church and state. It is as if I witness two 10-year olds discussing math.
My last post was supposed to read: Survival of the Fit to Be Tied. So much for editing on the fly.
Perhaps a preview function could be made available?
Agree totally, Rusty.
However, as annoying as it is to hear Ann Coulter make statements such as these I actually wish her name would become more closely associated with the religious right. Reasonable people, even some conservatives, are getting tired of this miserable skank. Let her become a spokesperson for "people of faith" and see how far the religious right starts dropping in civilized circles.
BTW, what is Coulter's preoccupation with "macho" stuff? She always strikes me as wishing she had been born a man. Sorry, Ann, we all have disappointments in life... besides being a man ain't all it's cracked up to be in civilized society. Maybe in your next life you could be born as a (male) Taliban leader.
Coulter's getting so nutty that I think it won't be long before the religious right will be the only ones who will claim her.
Well, Rusty, the fact that she's reduced to plugging her book on The 700 Club should tell you something.
Have you checked out her Adams Apple. How do you know she wasn't born a man. Wouldn't that be great. Annie ends up being born a man and tells the world it was a big joke.
that the 700 club would allow a platform for someone to make asanine statements.
Yegads. Who watches that nonsense?
This is way off topic, but I'm hoping to see some Josh Bolton stuff here.
Russert obliterated him on Sunday.
Would anyone in a public school read from her screed?
Is it Science? Is it History? Geography? Sociology?
As our friends on the right tell us so often, she's a comedian. Most schools don't teach the works of comedians, Although I think a course in Marx should be taught in every school.
How typical of you liberal, tree-hugging, IslamoFascist, America-hating communists to want to teach our children a course in --
Oh, wait. You meant Groucho.
As you were. ;)
He might have said about Coulter's book:
"From the moment I picked your book up until I put it down, I was convulsed with laughter. Some day I intend reading it."
or:
"Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read."
both quotes- Julius (Groucho) Marx
"I refuse to join any 700 Club that would have me as a member."
Gotta love him. I miss the old curmudgeon.
Quote/unquote:
Which is enough to wonder if Ms. Coulter's religious followings (as well as those specimens of Angry White Trash Eating Krispy Kreme Donuts guillable enough to accept her commentary as ur-Holy Writ) are really those of the Church of the Poison Mind, come to think of it....
Leave Krispy Kreme out of it!
[link to www.fortunecity.com]
[link to wilstar.com]
Nope - nothing they can't do!
If anyone has media face time with this thing, could they ask her holiness which church she attends each sunday? Who her pastor is?
It's interesting for a woman who daily disavows the beatitudes and apparently is not a church goer, to peddle a book about people's lack of religion.
Oh, and when did being an atheist become a crime? sorry I forgot we "elected" a fundamentalist puppet as president.
What's disappointing is that Ann Coulter is presumably an educated woman... which leads me to suspect that there may be a slight profit motive in her schtick.
For some reason most Americans insist that their political leaders profess blind faith in an immaterial supernatural intelligence as a prerequisite to governing. I just don't get this, because such blind faith is antithetical to an endeavor that should be based on rationality.
Ann Slanders claims to be a member of the redeemer presbyterian church in new york and further claims she brings a lot of members to the church. But amazingly, Cregin Cooke, the director, and other attendees "never heard of her..."
[link to www.rawstory.com]
Since it seemed that before it became fashionable to spout ignorant falsehoods about evolution, she didn't mention religion much.
I don't think she's one who should complain about faking religious beliefs... the only god she seems to have is Mammon.
She lambastes Dean for quoting from the Book of Job that wasn't in the right testament, but Bush couldn't even think of a single quote FROM ANY PART OF THE BIBLE when asked what his favorite passage was. Jeez, George, at least say "on the seventh day, He rested."
Oh, that's right. He's the Commander-in-Chief. He can do (or not do) anything he wants.
Good grief, has the man never seen the Waltons?
Considering for decades Gays were pretending to be straight so that they wouldn't be discriminated against might probably mean that they could further spread their genes. It's probably been happening for millenia even. Almost all the older gay and lesbians that I know have families.
This explains why a recessive trait, homosexuality, proliferates: social pressure. Imagine if the reverse were true, that there was great social pressure to act gay (pretend we have same sex procreation) and you were straight. You would take a gay lover, just as expected, then live your double life as "one of those" in seedy dockside dives and secret hole-in-the-wall speakeasies that cater to "straights". But someday, society would lighten the hell up and say, who cares, be whatever you want to be, so long as it's between consenting adults, who cares. A world completely tolerant of differences. That would be a nice place to live. I hope I see it some day.
Actually there have been many -- dare one say the word? -- scientific studies of this phenomenon. Of course, given the willful ignorance of the mainstream media -- much less the bozos like Coulter -- it isn't surprising that the well-known explainations within the community of evolutionary biologists hasn't made it into the general discussion.
Anyway, it turns out to be related to kin altruism. In this case, gay people are quite beneficial to groups or families. They help take care of children, and perform other services to the family. Thus, even though a gay man might not reproduce, his brother or sister would, so that the genetic component of "gayness" (forgive me for using such a word; I know it isn't correct, but I really haven't spent that much time on this) is passed to future generations.
This is all part of the general misunderstanding of the modern knowledge of evolution that wing-nuts such as those under discussion somehow turn into weapons in their arsenal. Part of the campaign to make sure everyone in America is a ignorant as they are -- and stupid enough to be manipulated by their content-free rhetoric.
And, of course, the problem is not that no one has answered Coulter. It's that when someone does, Fox, as well as the MSM, ignores them. Thus her self-referential argument. The only reference she has.
The only part of evolutionary theory the Right is eager to embrace Social Darwinism -- the one offshoot of evolutionary theory that's easiest to shoot down.
Humans were able to survive difficult times because they clumped together in big families and took care of each other. Not every family member had to produce a bunch of children.
"that by purportedly not challenging the title of her new book, Godless: The Church of Liberalism (Crown Forum, June 2006), liberals have "admitted they are godless."
I guess by also ignoring the book "How to Contact UFO's" we have confirmed their existence?
She was on the 700 Club ? That's as bad as a fading actor/actress doing a denture or diaper commercial.
At least she's found her right audience. >:-)
Jesus would not have hosted the devil...dunno why this fake Christian chose to.
Wow! what a feeble grasp of the concept.
Next those crazy scientists will be telling us that a 1/8" wide seed can turn into a full grown lemon tree in a matter of years, not even millions.
This is the same conservative math that keeps the lottery going.
Think of a number between 1 and 100. Ask them to guess it. (They'll probably get it wrong.) Then tell them how many times in a row they'd have to get it right to win the lottery!
Rusty,
I think you reduced the irreducible complexity argument a bit too much.
I wish I could remember the odds, but it seems to me someone figured out the odds to be 1 to more than the numbers of molecules in the universe to producing human life from a mix of chemicals. You see, we're not talking just one number in a hundred, but lots of complex processes.
While I can't vouch for the numbers, it does show the complexity of the theory.
I know I changed the spelling of irreducible!
What are the odds the spelling gods are out to get me?
I was just talking about lottery tickets, in response to HBL's reference to conservative innumeracy. Not talking about irreducible complexity. But if you could direct me to a scientific paper about "irreducible complexity" that has been published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, I'd be glad to take a look at it.
I guess there aren't any peer-reviewed scientific journal articles about "irreducible complexity." And that's the cornerstone of the anti-evolutionists' argument! Why, in the absence of any supporting science, I'm starting to doubt anti-evolution...
To say that evolution is false due to extreme complexity is a farce. Man has forever attributed the unexplainable to God. Given enough time the only thing left unexplained will be Ann Coulter.
Her and Robertson's existence proves evolution....someone has to make up the 20% or so of reject genes straggling along at the rear end of the progress of our species.
Oh, and it wasn't a bear....it was a prehistoric mammal about the size and shape of a fat crocodile that lived in and about water. Methinks the 700 Club crowd never watches the science channels, do they?
If the odds of life being too complicated to be created from chemicals/elements, what are the odds of God being created from something else? I would presume they would be at least as high, and yet it apparently happened.
I agree totally. Speaking as a person who has faith in a higher Being, although probably not the same mean-spirited one that some seem to worship, I understand the concept of taking things on faith and not necessarily having tangible facts to prove it correct…basically taking something on faith based purely on belief…like my belief in “The Big Guy”. It boggles my mind how some can argue evolution because there are a few unanswered questions yet they accept God as the creator on simple faith. Not sure how they can make the argument when they are believers in the improvable. One side has scientific evidence albeit incomplete and the other side has faith…odds are in favor of the scientific guys if you ask me.
Ah...you make a serious mathematical error. We already know that humans exist, so of course the odds that this exact species would be produced are tiny. That's why life on other worlds would likely be different. The odds that intelligent life of any variety would develop are quite high. It's called the anthropic principle. Effectively, circumstances that didn't lead to intelligent life would produce nobody to wonder about their existence. Don't worry, old chap, it's a common misconception of feeble-minded religious zealots. You're in good company.
[link to en.wikipedia.org]
What the numbers show is the POWER of the theory of evolution, that it explains how natural processes are not random, but rather amazingly creative.
Another example of the misuse of scientific vocabulary. To Darwin, random simply meant that the process of producing mutations was not part of his theory. He only explain what happened once they were produced. He knew nothing of genetics.
Remeber that Chinese baby that was born with three arms??? Don't tell me that was a genetic defect. I think humans are finally starting to evolve a third arm out of necessity to type on the computer with two hands and use the mouse with the other. We can only hope that before Miss Coulter is welcomed into the afterlife that all the three-armed people in the world can smack this devil in sheep's clothing around to remind her about her false argument about evolution. Intelligent design might as well have been designed by this ogre of a woman.
"I think humans are finally starting to evolve a third arm out of necessity to type on the computer with two hands and use the mouse with the other. "
Because this is the funniest comment I read today!
Is for drinking coffee and smoking cigarettes
The third hand would be to hold over our eyes as we place our other two hands over our ears. This way we can not hear or see when someone is trying to talk us out of our delusions concerning intelligent design, or the rapture, or when we try to add up all of that begatting to figure out the true age of the flat earth.
Obviously the third hand is for choking one's chicken.
I'll bet you anything Ann Coulter always fakes it when she yells out "Oh God!!!!"
You mean she procreates? Heaven help us, now I know where the anti christ will be born!
just an observation regarding your analogy to "How to Contact UFO's".
I think your analogy needs some work. If Coulter had written "All Liberals are Great" and no liberals argued the point, it implies that the libs agree with her.
At this point, unlike liberals, there are no aliens from UFO's out there to refute her this argument... Wait a second.. unless of course all liberals come from UFO's! ;-)
Since there are plenty of PEOPLE out there that claim to have seen and even been abducted by UFOs. Therefore the analogy stands
Maybe the liberals assumed that the title "Godless" meant it was an autobiography.
I sure there are enough polytheist liberals to make up for the "Godless" liberals. Maybe enough to balance things out with those "Godfull" conservatives. But then Ann and the 700 club would not count their gods in the tally since they are not Lebensborn like Ann and friends.
Bob "misdemeanor" Taft.......screw all that discussion about teaching evolution vs. I.D.............lets have more classes in coin collecting
your right, homosexuality has been around for a millenia but i think probably even longer than that. The bible has always been against it. Even the Old Testament condems it. Meaning it's as old as THE BIBLE.
When you consider that most human ranges can be described with a Bell curve, I can imagine the rate of Homosexuality has been unchanged more or less for that long (2% was the number I last heard) The fact that it still exists to this day despite all measures to deselect for it (gay bashing, natural proclivity to not breed with the oposite sex, etc.) means that it's genetic origins run deep in the gene pool, surfacing randomly perhaps. In this day in age, it's not that there are more gay ppl, it's that they feel safer to come out (tho if I lived in the states I don't know if I'd think that :(
Is it possible that Coulter is going to emerge as the new Tammy-Faye Baker? She has the make-up just about right. Add a pound of chocolates a day for about three months and well picture it-the resemblance is uncanny. All we need is a sex scandal with say O'Reilly and a luffa or Limbaugh and a bottle of Viagra and it would be like a flashback. Now if we could just get her to weep instead of vomit bilious spew on cue she could be the queen of CBN. Unfortunately Annie may be her own best argument against evolution. But even here she loses the argument. Evolution does not always, evidently, result in an improved product.
Unfortunately Annie may be her own best argument against evolution.
She's an even better argument against "intelligent design."
The Eyes of Tammy Faye ([link to www.imdb.com] I find myself totally resenting that comparison. Tammy Faye has a heart.
Excellent point Rusty. Wish I had of thought of that myself. And Sagra--I certainly meant no offense. Perhaps I should have suggested Whackety Annie should aspire to be Tammy Faye. Still my perceptions of Tammy Faye were influenced more by Frank Zappa's lyrics to the song Jesus Thinks You're a Jerk than the movie (which I have actually seen). I post the link to the lyrics at risk of being flagged. [link to www.lyricsfreak.com]
Did anyone else notice that about a quarter of the way through the video the reflection of a woman appears on the window over Anntichrist's shoulder? And it aint Mary. It looks like a very curvy woman in her underwear. Seemed sort of shocking for a religious show. Almost as shocking as seeing Coulter on a religious show.
Isn't one of the tenants of Christianity humility and humbleness? It sure seems that Coulter is trying to rub it in your face that she's religious and that if you're not religious (ora as religious as she), that you're no good, and by deduction, evil.
Her mere presence on the 700 Club shouldn't come as a shock to anyone. The fact that she always gets it wrong and people treat her word as divine is what should bother a person.
"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. "
eat something. have a sandwich.
...what I've been saying for a while now. When you argue with anti-science loony-toons you give them an air of legitimacy that gives them more clout than they deserve. Ignore them and they can claim that you're just no arguing against them because you know they're right and are scared to debate. It's heads they win, tails you lose.
It's so exasperating to know that there are a large number of Americans who are braindead enough to take this woman (or the channel she's on) seriously.
scientists find that transitional species that knocks out a few million years in the evolutionary gap, then they focus on the now smaller gap. see, there's nothing between this and this. repeat endlessly as needed.
It's typical opposite disease that conservatives suffer from in which they project their traits onto others.
Coulter calls people a bunch of names, people not only point out what she says but then debunk her "points" with factual evidence.
When you counter her venom with facts, she (using a favorite Rove + Hannity tactic) then claims that you did not refute her issues even though she did.
Yes she needs to be taken on. (Partly b/c the more exposure she gets the more people will realize what right wingers are actually like.) But she's such an easy person to debate. Just point out her name calling, give the facts, point out when she's not discussing the issues and she's toast.
Oh, Coulter knows that she could never debate a real liberal. (Alan Colmes doesn't count.) And that's why when she appears on TV or radio, it's almost always solo.
...he sent Ann Coulter and her thugs to beat the sinners up with baseball bats and give Pat Robertson more arguments for his "arsenal".
Interesting religion these spirit-filled people of God profess to believe.
For the record Anne, while it is offensive that you would generalize a group of people as "Godless", if my relationship with a supreme being was contingent upon your opinion, I would be breaking the first commandment.
Apparently Coulter and Robertson don't mind breaking the Commandment against "bearing false witness," as they both do it constantly.
is to be believers and not keep trying to fake a belief in democracy.
I see God all the time, even have a telescope so I can see God's features more clearly. The trick to seeing God is to realize you don't look "up" at a night sky but "out" into it. To find the Creator, look at the Creation....and you will find they are one and the same.
We've been looking out into God since we were children. Welcome to the church of St Galileo.
....not SCIENCE again!!! It just confuses the red-staters. No more dog-garned science!!!
I resent that she thinks we godless are the majority of the liberals and the party .If only we were! I can live with Jim Wallis, but I prefer PeterSinger,Paul Kurtz and Arthur Caplan as my moral leaders. Rather than dominating anything ,,we are lucky just to have a little influence. Is it true that CoultEr is Phyllis Scafly's other love child ,besides Hannity with B'OR?
Gee I thought Ann was out bumping in the sheets doing the un marital bump & Grind, kind a like liberals do. okay so that's off but here we have the wacko of all wackos (Robertson) who uses his audience for a sounding board to spill his Words from Gawd to assinate Chavez. A true man of god, an inspiration Pat you are a selfcentered schmo who former employees know you have bilked millions for your own lavish lifestyle. in the process sullied the gospel with your contaminated doctrines.
That you have this Wacko B , this wench, this American disgrace, who's dispicable lack of grace and overt hipocracy nevermind media chasing has ensnared and manipulated your sorry ass.
The Flame will burn a bit brighter when the two of you are in the fires of hell. Your show has become a launching pad for the sic and twisted , Geraldo for zealots of the religious right. Sleazey and if you didn't notice Pat ANN is just an opportunistic media fornicator.
I hope it was Good for you and worth it. Both Specimen A & Specimen B are a disgrace to America.
I'll second the well-stated comment above from the person who pointed out that while these two try to nit-pick the abundant evidence of evolution, they promote a belief in God, for which there is no evidence at all.
But who's Gordon Robertson (MM intro)? I thought his name was Pat. There can't be two of these guys, can there?
My daughter was a Cornell with Coulter and remembers her as a drunk who'd have sex with anyone anytime - she was quite popular in that regard.
Coulter's 'conversion' is more to do with pandering to the wing-nut book club crowd than a testimony to her religiosity. She's late to the JC bandwagon - her book was pushed off the Times best seller list by liberal books - and her defense of the plagiarism charge is on-going and will probably result in criminal charges.
She is simply (like her hero Dubya and Joe M) another loser who's desperate to be liked (or laid).
Her only value is that she's is so ridiculous that she has no credibility with anyone who has any intelligence or education. She is the anorexic wax figure who actually does stand for the true right-wing 'christian' and in that role reveals their true agenda with transparency of purpose. My daughter was a Cornell with Coulter and remembers her as a drunk who'd have sex with anyone anytime - she was quite popular in that regard.
Coulter's 'conversion' is more to do with pandering to the wing-nut book club crowd than a testimony to her religiosity. She's late to the JC bandwagon - her book was pushed off the Times best seller list by liberal books - and her defense of the plagiarism charge is on-going and will probably result in criminal charges.
She is simply (like her hero Dubya and Joe M) another loser who's desperate to be liked (or laid).
Her only value is that she's is so ridiculous that she has no credibility with anyone who has any intelligence or education. She is the anorexic wax figure who actually does stand for the true right-wing 'christian' and in that role reveals their true agenda with transparency of purpose.
I hope they removed all the bibles and holy water from the set. I'd hate to see anything burst into flames.
...
Okay, so actually I wouldn't hate it that much.
"...[T]hey really haven't complained about the title of my book. I think I would have noticed if somebody called me godless. But I really haven't heard people protest about that. No, they're upset about what I say about the Jersey Girls."
Since when does the fact that no one has called Ann Coulter godless mean that, "So I think we all are on record now, officially liberals have admitted they are godless and don't even mind it." Well let me be the first; Ann Coulter is either godless or has an idol that calls itself god but is totally opposed to everything that Jesus taught.
Jesus did not say attack the widows. He did not teach that anyone who disagrees with you is an enemy. Jesus taught that we are all sinners in need of forgiveness. Jesus did not hang out with the publicly "religious," he was to be found among the sinners, the tax collectors, and the sick.
Where did Ann Coulter learn biology? Any college freshman in a liberal arts program probably knows more about evolution than she seems to know.