The American Vision: A Biblical Worldview Ministry

The Infallibility Doctrine of Modern-Day Liberalism

Become an insider.
Sign up for our emails.

We won't spam, rent, sell, or share
your information in any way.

Ann Coulter begins her book Godless: The Church of Liberalism with this opening salvo: “Liberals love to boast that they are not ‘religious,’ which is what one would expect to hear from the state-sanctioned religion. Of course liberalism is a religion. It has its own cosmology, its own miracles, its own beliefs in the supernatural, its own churches, its own priests, its own saints, its own total worldview, and its own explanation of the existence of the universe. In other words, liberalism contains all the attributes of what is generally known as ‘religion.’”[1]

What the religion of liberalism cannot account for is the moral system that its priests work so hard to impose on all of us. The religion of liberalism is based on the Darwinian model of origins which is officially atheistic. It was the high priest of the Darwinian religion, Richard Dawkins, who wrote, “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.”[2] If evolution is true, which most Liberals claim it is, then how can they be outraged about anything, including the treatment of the widows of 9/11? Maybe their husbands were “less fit”?

As Coulter points out, Liberalism also has its own doctrine of infallibility. Christians have an inerrant and infallible Bible, and Liberals have a series of “victim spokesmen” to defend their irrational religion. They cannot be questioned because of their special status as prophets of the Liberal religion. They speak for the Liberal gods, and to attack one of these prophets is to attack god himself and the religion that represents him/her/it. R. J. Rushdoony has written, “Infallibility is an inescapable concept. If men refuse to ascribe infallibility to Scripture, it is because the concept has been transferred to something else.”[3]

The best chapter in Godless is the one Coulter is getting attacked on: “Liberals’ Doctrine of Infallibility: Sobbing Hysterical Women.” Why? Because she reveals the Liberal strategy, and she does it with such effectiveness that Liberals have to divert attention from her compelling arguments in this chapter as well as the rest of the book by focusing on snippets taken out of the broader context. The context is the intelligence and political failures leading up to 9/11 and how the 9/11 Commission was a sham. The Commission consisted of five members chosen by congressional Democrats, four members chosen by congressional Republicans, and the chairman chosen by President Bush. While the Republicans chose moderate Republicans, the Democrats picked attack dogs.

I wonder why Liberals in the media concentrated on Coulter’s remarks about the “Jersey Girls,” which some conservatives believe were over the top, even given Coulter’s penchant for red-meat rhetoric, while not dealing with this bombshell?: “Apart from the Wright brothers’ invention of the airplane itself, no single innovation was more responsible for the 9/11 attack than [Clinton deputy attorney general Jamie] Gorelick’s decision to put up [the information] wall [that would not allow different agencies to share intelligence information]”?[4] Coulter was indirectly blaming Gorelick for 9/11! Better to draw attention to the widows than bring up what the real problem is.

It’s Coulter’s view that by putting up infallible spokesmen—victims of the 9/11 tragedy—the decision of the 9/11 Commission cannot be challenged. She writes: “The 9/11 Commission was a scam and a fraud, the sole purpose of which was to cover up the disasters of the Clinton administration and distract the nation’s leaders during wartime.”

Of course, Coulter reveals a double standard. Why can liberals call conservatives Nazis and racists and talk about putting a bullet between George Bush’s eyes and calling for the execution of Scooter Libby and Karl Rove and there be no media reaction?

No topic should be given celebrity immunity because opinions are espoused by sympathetic victims. This is the point Coulter makes when some widows of the tragedy of 9/11—known as “the Jersey Girls”[5]—are made political spokesmen for a Liberal cause by Liberal leaders who cannot defend their views by a rehearsal of the facts: “the Democrats hit on an ingenious strategy: They would choose messengers whom we’re not allowed to reply to. . . . Liberals haven’t changed the message, just the messenger.”[6]


[1] Ann Coulter, Godless: The Church of Liberalism (New York: Crown Forum/Random House, 2006), 1.
[2] Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design (New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 1986), 6.
[3] Rousas J. Rushdoony, Systematic Theology, 2 vols. (Vallecito, CA: Ross House Books, 1994), 1:2. Emphasis in original. Infallibility: An Inescapable Concept was originally published separately by Ross House Books in 1978 and was later incorporated in Rushdoony’s Systematic Theology.
[4] Coulter, Godless, 108.
[5] Coulter, Godless, 103.
[6] Coulter, Godless, 101.

Filed under: , , ,

Join the email family.

We won't spam, rent, sell, or share
your information in any way.

Join the support family.

Donate Now
linkedin facebook pinterest youtube rss twitter instagram facebook-blank rss-blank linkedin-blank pinterest youtube twitter instagram
The American Vision