I Love That Horse-Faced Loon
Wow. I just saw Ann Coulter’s new book at Borders. Normally when Ann releases a new book I glance at it in the store long enough to get an idea of what kind of malarkey she’s selling, but this time I may have to actually read the thing cover to cover.
You see, Ann’s taking on liberals (big shock) and trying to turn its member’s disinclination to align with organized religion and spin it (the right is good at spinning things, hi Karl). She essentially is arguing that liberalism is in itself a religion. Wow. Big shock, Ann. Real hard hitting stuff from the woman who was ranked one of the nation’s top intellectuals, proving what Reinaldo Arenas meant when he said, “There are no American intellectuals.”
Since one can argue the same about the right, Ann’s book seems sort of a waste. Her argument is all ready summed up nicely in the book jacket, but the real issue she seems to be focusing on is the theory of evolution. It is, according to the italicized description (hold on for the next big shock), bogus science. By that Coulter means it has not been proven with hard science. Well, that’s why it is a theory and not a fact, Ann. I assumed a top intellectual might understand the difference, and to be sure, I think she does. She’s just counting on her reader’s semi-literacy.
My thoughts on evolution:
As a bleeding heart liberal, I am inclined to believe in evolution, or at least to support the research of the theory. It may lack definitive scientific evidence but it is still more logical, rational and contains more validity than creationism, intelligent design or any other bit of religion hokum. There is little scientific evidence supporting it? Yes, but there is NO scientific or historical evidence supporting Christianity. Don’t bother to point out that there is some withered piece of papyrus that says a guy named Jesus Christ once walked the Earth. Yeah, well, there are many people with my unusual name around Chicago, so I guess there could have been many Jesus Christs. And where in this parchment does it mention him changing agua into vino?
It seems the religious folk would love nothing more than to dismiss Darwin’s (pay attention to the next word) theory any way they can. I can only assume it bothers them because it asks them to question their faith, which must be paper thin if a mere theory can upset them this much. I can only think of witch-hunts and the burning of heretics as examples of past religious zealotry and its quest to eradicate anything that contradicted their fairy tales. Jesus would be ashamed.
So yes, I may have to read an Ann Coulter book. I’ll be sure to shower after I’m done. Who knows, maybe I’ll be converted. I mean, if we can’t prove evolution, well, that means there can be no other option but to swear allegiance to the church, right? In the case of this country, yes, so long as it is a Church and not a Mosque.
You see, Ann’s taking on liberals (big shock) and trying to turn its member’s disinclination to align with organized religion and spin it (the right is good at spinning things, hi Karl). She essentially is arguing that liberalism is in itself a religion. Wow. Big shock, Ann. Real hard hitting stuff from the woman who was ranked one of the nation’s top intellectuals, proving what Reinaldo Arenas meant when he said, “There are no American intellectuals.”
Since one can argue the same about the right, Ann’s book seems sort of a waste. Her argument is all ready summed up nicely in the book jacket, but the real issue she seems to be focusing on is the theory of evolution. It is, according to the italicized description (hold on for the next big shock), bogus science. By that Coulter means it has not been proven with hard science. Well, that’s why it is a theory and not a fact, Ann. I assumed a top intellectual might understand the difference, and to be sure, I think she does. She’s just counting on her reader’s semi-literacy.
My thoughts on evolution:
As a bleeding heart liberal, I am inclined to believe in evolution, or at least to support the research of the theory. It may lack definitive scientific evidence but it is still more logical, rational and contains more validity than creationism, intelligent design or any other bit of religion hokum. There is little scientific evidence supporting it? Yes, but there is NO scientific or historical evidence supporting Christianity. Don’t bother to point out that there is some withered piece of papyrus that says a guy named Jesus Christ once walked the Earth. Yeah, well, there are many people with my unusual name around Chicago, so I guess there could have been many Jesus Christs. And where in this parchment does it mention him changing agua into vino?
It seems the religious folk would love nothing more than to dismiss Darwin’s (pay attention to the next word) theory any way they can. I can only assume it bothers them because it asks them to question their faith, which must be paper thin if a mere theory can upset them this much. I can only think of witch-hunts and the burning of heretics as examples of past religious zealotry and its quest to eradicate anything that contradicted their fairy tales. Jesus would be ashamed.
So yes, I may have to read an Ann Coulter book. I’ll be sure to shower after I’m done. Who knows, maybe I’ll be converted. I mean, if we can’t prove evolution, well, that means there can be no other option but to swear allegiance to the church, right? In the case of this country, yes, so long as it is a Church and not a Mosque.
posted by ZombieDante at 3:02 PM
<< Home