• If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.

  • You already know Dokkio is an AI-powered assistant to organize & manage your digital files & messages. Very soon, Dokkio will support Outlook as well as One Drive. Check it out today!


Project Two Final Draft:

Page history last edited by amy.schneider85 12 years, 6 months ago

Amy Schneider



“Of course liberalism is a religion. It has its own cosmology, its own miracles, its own belief in the supernatural, its own churches, its own high priest, its own saints, its own total worldview, and its own explanation of the existence of the universe”. A quote from the book Godless: The church of liberalism written by a conservative. The book uses many rhetorical devices to persuade her audience that liberalism is in itself a religion. The book also argues the political view itself. With all the arguments that Coulter argues she uses a direct stab into liberalism and how it is wrong. She uses very little ethos, pathos, and logos, for every argument. And when Coulter has no emotional, logical, or even social argument to defend her right winged point of view she just uses a new rhetorical view, ignorance with her dumb opinion.

Her main argument of the book is showing people who think that a lot of liberals aren’t religious are and they simply practice the religion of liberalism.  According to Coulter “ Liberals define religion as only those belief systems that subscribe to the notion of a divine being in order to dismiss other and Buddhism have no creator God either, and they are considered religions.” Where is the fact of this argument? Is there a survey of all liberals given the question of defying religion? “The body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.” Apparently Merriam Webster is a republican. The lack logos in this statement is really disappointing but I expect nothing less from a person who has a note at the bottom of the page explaining her

                                                                                                                                         Schneider 2

Definition of Christianity in her book. “ * Throughout this book, I often refer to Christians and Christianity because I am a Christian and I have a fairly good idea if what they believe, but the term is intended to include anyone who subscribes to the Bible of the God of Abraham, including Jews and others.” Now last time I checked Jew is still an offensive word still used with many anti-semitists. I will consider my rhetorical view to be read by all people that like to read this book and that includes the Negros. I am including everyone but because I feel I am white I will say whites throughout my paper, but any human being can read it. And as for the use of “others” who is she talking about?  Who else studies the Bible besides the Jewish Community, and Christians?  Already in the very beginning of the book she does show ethos because it is not affecting anyone but Christians, Jews, and others. You are cutting out half the United States. How is an Islamic conservative supposed to relate when reading this book when they are not included?  There goes the emotional feeling of Pathos, and as you can tell by her definition of religion for a liberal stand point she will have no logos in her book.

“Liberals swoon in pagan admiration of Mother Earth, mystified and overawed by her power” This is clearly a pathos argument. This affects everyone who not only believes in God but also those who don’t emotionally I feel that you should take care of the Earth because God gave it us. But according to Coulter because it is the wasteland we should treat it as such. Well when Coulter drowns from the polar ice caps melting or dies from cancer because the sun is burning us because our ozone is slowly diminishing, I’m sure she will pray for forgiveness to the Lord Jesus Christ for not taking care of the wasteland.  “Public schools are forbidden from

                                                                                                                             Schneider 3

Mentioning religion not because of the constitution, but because public schools are the Left’s madrassas.”(pg12) I pay taxes to the state and that covers all state spending such as well I don’t know roads and PUBLIC SCHOOLS! The state runs public school there is a special kind of school for religious people it’s called PRIVATE! Where is the logic in saying that liberals control the public school system?!  Whether or not it is Governor Grandholm or Snyder the public school system is still ran by the government and according to the government there is a separation between church and state.  Where is the pathos and logos, and even ethos in that argument? It’s just Coulter stating her stupid conservative opinion. She goes off on telling about how people don’t teach abstinence because kids are going to have sex anyways. Instead of using logos in saying that schools that teach abstence show a greater decrease in teenage pregnancy she just rants about how they are teaching kids how to have safe sex. But there is a reason for her not explaining logic of those abstinence schools, because in Sterling Heights the Utica Community Schools have a strict absence policy, yet I graduated with 5 girls that had a baby before they got their high school diploma.  That’s why. Absence isn’t the best policy, but if they were taught to put on a condom then well they wouldn’t have little Madison right now would they.

Coulter argues that teachers are the priest of Liberalism and complains about how they don’t agree that they get enough money and she argues that what is the motive for them being teachers the money or the idea of teaching young minds. So this argument has a sense of logos to it. But when you think about, what if you did a very important job and were getting

                                                                                                                        Schneider 4

Underpaid for it wouldn’t you complain? So how can she argue this logic when the opposing argument is logical itself?

These are just the many arguments that Coulter poses and as you can see none of them state fact but just her right winged opinion. When picking up this book I was being prepared to face the hard fact of God doesn’t want me to be a liberal, but then I remembered why I am a liberal Christian. Let me rephrase that a liberal Catholic, because when you mixed right winged people who say you can’t kill a baby but killing a grown man guilty of murder is ethical is just sick. Especially when they write books that only states opinion with no logos, ethos, or pathos in the arguments. Now of course I could argue against every right winged argument that she through against me but just by the type of person she is with the arguments I have reviewed just shows that the facts that she puts in the book has flaws.  All in all this entire book explaining how liberals have their own religion is poorly argued. I believe that if she could use pathos with some of her arguments she would have a better effect on her readers.  With ethos and politics it is hard to get a good argument but when you use logic and pathos you show your readers a different side to politics, a side with humane qualities. Saying that the reason Christians don’t believe in evolution is because we are taught not to lie “in fact we have a commandment about it” will not get your liberal reader to agree with you.

I always thought that I had good morals. I don’t cheat, I don’t lie, and I don’t steal. I was brought up in a Catholic house hold where my parents taught me not too. But I am a liberal, a lesbian, and a catholic.  I don’t force my religious views on anyone because I was always taught


The two things you should never talk in public are; Religion and Politics. I only wish that Ann Coulter’s parents had taught her the same.



Comments (0)

You don't have permission to comment on this page.