Much ado is being made about Ann CoulterÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s remarks about 9/11 widows with people such as Hilary Clinton falling over herself to condemn them. Now, technically I think Ann had a bit of a point (political parties hiding behind untouchables, such as the Republicans accusing anyone who disagrees with the war of not Ã¢â‚¬Ëœsupporting the troopsÃ¢â‚¬â„¢), but thereÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s something else thatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s more interesting.
Nothing is being made of the fact that her book is little more than an anti-atheist tirade. The title itself is an insult and harkens back to the days when it was the Christians being called godless by their Roman neighbours.
From page two of the tirade:
Their belief system is taught as fact in government schools, while the biblical belief system is banned from government schools by law. As a matter of faith, liberals believe: Darwinism is a fact, people are born gay, recycling is a virtue and chastity is not. If people are born gay, why hasnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t Darwinism weeded out people who donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t reproduce? (For that, we need a theory of survival of the most fabulous.) And if gays canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t change, why do liberals think child-molesters can?
I think it says something about how ingrained and acceptable anti-atheist bias is when the best insult a political hack can come up with is Ã¢â‚¬Å“GodlessÃ¢â‚¬Â and no one calls her out on her bigotry. What if she had titled her book Ã¢â‚¬Å“Nigger: The Colour of LiberalismÃ¢â‚¬Â or some other such rubbish? What would the reviews be like then?
And if such a title pissed me off, would people be telling me that I should be a good little brown person so that the white people who think IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m a nigger will someday see the error of their ways?
I think not.