Ann Coulter goes for the joke, the facts be damned, as a matter of course, but judging from this interview and excerpt from her new book Godless: The Church of Liberalism, she really outdoes herself on that score this time around. She asserts that to be a “right-winger” is to be “on the side of God,” and to be liberal is the “opposition party to God.” Not that she’s trying to be a drama queen or anything. But let’s see if she has any evidence to back up that statement.
For starters, in the Bible there are 613 commandments recognized by Jews, and ten (plus) of those are followed by Christians, but there are only two commandments at the Church of Ann Coulter (and her right-wing posse):
1. Subdue the earth, have dominion over it, and use it up as quickly as possible.
2. Don’t be a fag.
As for the other pesky 611 commandments, like “don’t kill” and “don’t bear false witness?” Hey, let the Jews and the Godless liberals worry about all that nonsense. Those aren’t really conducive to calling for the random “nuking” of various countries just for the sheer “fun” of it, so we won’t go there.
In the interest of fairness, I should admit, that I simply don’t like Ann Coulter, and it has little to do with her right-wing positions. (I have an inner-right-winger myself, truth be told.) The reason is I just don’t care for a woman (and I’m using the term loosely here) who makes a great living running around trying to convince other women that God wants them to stay home, shut up and multiply. Does He really? Yeah? Well then, how about you first, Ann.
In the same vein, she goes on to say that the legalization of birth control for married couples inevitably led to the AIDS crisis. Now here’s where I get particularly annoyed, because do you suppose that she runs around dressed like she does, drinking and smoking all hours of the night in bars, and is a 50-year-old virgin? Highly unlikely. So unless she just happens to have been infertile, she should thank those useless old windbags of the Supreme Court for ensuring her right to be as slutty as she wants to be. And then she should shut up about it. Really.
An important thing the Godless liberals believe is that corporations shouldn't be making obscene profits at the expense of their employees and the environment. Evidently Ann thinks God disagrees and the real villains are the lawyers who make money filing lawsuits that hold corporations accountable. In her own words:
- "Halliburton helps produce the oil and gasoline that keep us warm, feed us, allow us to travel, power our world, and so on. What do trial lawyers produce again?"
Here’s another “fact” according to Coulter: “Environmentalists want mass infanticide.” I looked high and low to verify this, but neither the Green Party, nor the Democrats list “mass infanticide” as a goal. It’s not stated as a goal by Greenpeace or the United Nations either. For the love of Mike, even the over-the-top nuts at PETA don’t advocate infanticide. So just who are these “liberal environmentalists” of whom she speaks? Oh yeah, that Peter Singer guy, whose pretty much universally understood to be an extremist lunatic, even among the Godless. Sorry Ann, hire a fact checker already.
Article comments
1 - Al Barger
For you Staci, we have this Evil Ann Coulter Photo Gallery. Enjoy.
2 - Humane Being
You wrote:
Here's another "fact" according to Coulter: "Environmentalists want mass infanticide." I looked high and low to verify this, but neither the Green Party, nor the Democrats list "mass infanticide" as a goal. It's not stated as a goal by Greenpeace or the United Nations either. For the love of Mike, even the over-the-top nuts at PETA don't advocate infanticide. So just who are these "liberal environmentalists" of whom she speaks? Oh yeah, that Peter Singer guy, whose pretty much universally understood to be an extremist lunatic, even among the Godless. Sorry Ann, hire a fact checker already.
I reply:
Can you show us where Peter Singer has advocated mass infanticide?
Here's an example of what Singer actually says about infanticide:
"I became interested in the treatment of severely disabled newborn infants in the late 1970s, when I learned that it is common practice for doctors to deal with such cases by "letting nature take its course." This means that no operations are performed and no antibiotics given, and the babies die slowly over many days, weeks, or even months. Parents often are not consulted but simply told that there is nothing that can be done for their child. This seems to me an evasion of moral responsibility, and often grossly inhumane. Yet, on investigating the prospects for some of the more severely disabled infants, I had to accept that it was not always good to prolong life, no matter what its prospects might be. Sometimes it was reasonable to decide that a life that had barely begun should not continue. But who should make this difficult decision? The infant, of course, cannot."...
"I could see no important moral distinction between allowing death to occur by the deliberate withholding of available medical treatment and actively intervening to hasten death and ensure that it came swiftly and humanely. I still think the latter course, precisely because it does involve less suffering, is often the morally better one to take."...
Source: "Ethics and Disability." Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 2005. utilitarian.net
3 - Staci Schoff
Originally, I'd pointed out that even Peter Singer doesn't advocate "mass" infanticide, but I cut it. You're right. Still, both to me and the vast majority of people (even liberals) what he advocates is morally reprehensible.
4 - Zenseeker
I think deep down, what Ann really wants, is to be bitch slapped so hard, she goes flying.
Try out this flash game I just finished called: Slap Ann Coulter b4 she nukes half the world at Link to Slap Ann Coulter here. [Edited]
5 - Mom101
Great piece, as always Staci. I'm just impressed you got through it. Don't tell anyone, but whenever I see it displayed in a bookstore, I put Al Franken's book right in front of it.
6 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Staci,
One little point with your article. Judaism recognizes 613 commandments, not 673. Six hundred thirteen is enough, we do not need anther 60.
7 - Staci Schoff
Ruvy, thank you, I'll see if I can fix that.
8 - duane
There are at least 25 commandments having to do with sexual practices, many having to do with olive oil, a lot have to do with cows, several dealing with lepers. Then there's hair length, wine and grapes, not to bear a grudge (haha, hoho), to rebuke the sinner (ah, well, here it comes), a lot of rules about who can or cannot marry whom, one forbids eating a worm if found in fruit, and one of my favorites disallows one from eating the flesh of an ox that was condemned to be stoned, not to sell a Hebrew servant as a slave (that should be an easy one), to make a parapet for your roof, not to swear falsely in denial of another's property rights.
Some are probably redundant, such as not to steal personal property and not to rob by violence. I think the first one covers the second. Maybe not. "Not to covet what belongs to another" is pretty much the same as "not to crave something that belongs to another," I would think. But then again, what do I know?
This one is a little gruesome, "That the dead body of an executed criminal shall not remain hanging on the tree over night." Wow. Good thing Israel has no death penalty, although it says in Genesis 9:6 "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed, for in the image of God made he man." Well, that's one for the scholars to hammer out, I guess.
No tattoos.
"To slay the inhabitants of a city that has become idolatrous and burn that city." That's a big responsibility.
"Not to work with beasts of different species, yoked together." Yeah, I once yoked a mule and a musk ox, and lemme tell you ... nothing but trouble.
And hundreds more. It's all very complicated.