When Ann Coulter Attacks

Anyone who has read her work will know that Ann "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity" Coulter's columns are typically a tissue of distortions and misrepresentations pieced together for no apparent purpose other than to belittle and smear anyone with the nerve to disagree with her and her political agenda. Why? Because apparently such verbal assaults on others sells well - it's certainly not because she ever actually manages to inform or educate readers.

The latest screed can be found at Town Hall, where Coulter complains about "outsiders" (read: liberals) come into towns to challenge unconstitutional endorsements of religion:

Liberals in New York and Washington are consumed with what people are doing in Alabama and Nebraska. Nadine Strossen and Barry Lynn cannot sleep at night knowing that someone, somewhere, is gazing upon something that could be construed as a religious symbol.

What Ann Coulter fails to mention to her readers (deliberately, I think, because I find it inconceivable that she is innocently unaware of it) is that all of the lawsuits in question must be filed by a local resident. There is this little legal concept called "standing" involved: you can't sue to stop the government from doing something, no matter how blatantly illegal or unconstitutional, unless you have "standing."

What you need to have "standing" will vary from case to case, but basically you have to be able to identify some specific harm which the courts can stop or provide redress for. If you haven't been harmed or if the courts can't actually do anything, then your lawsuit will be tossed out. This means that the ACLU can't swoop in from New York and sue a town in Alabama for violating the Constitution unless a resident of that town stands up and objects. Then, and only then, is it possible for the ACLU to provide legal representation.

What this means then is that the actual plaintiff is a local resident - technically, they are the ones suing, not the ACLU. The ACLU is involved because they typically provide free legal help and a great deal of experience in such cases - and they are always mentioned because their name is well known. Of course, if Ann Coulter had to acknowledge this fact, the whole point of her column would be lost and she'd have to come up with some other excuse to insult people.

But wait, it gets better:

Mail-order minister Barry Lynn's Americans United for Separation of Church and State – a group curiously devoid of both Americans and churchgoers – sued little Chester County, Pa., demanding that it remove a Ten Commandments plaque that has hung on the courthouse wall since 1920.

There is so much wrong here that it is makes my head spin just trying to keep it all straight. First, the plaintiffs in the case were Sally Flynn and Margaret Downey, president of the Freethought Society of Greater Philadelphia. Both were local residents who were represented by the ACLU. I wouldn't be surprised if Americans United filed a brief in the case, but I can't find any evidence that they sued the Chester County government.

So why claim that they did? Well, it allows Coulter to launch into ridiculous attacks on the organization. Barry Lynn is an ordained minister in the United Church of Christ - and they don't seem to provide "mail-order ordinations." I don't think that Ann Coulter wants anyone to think that a legitimate Christian minister could possibly believe that the separation of church and state is a good thing - despite the fact that it has been defended by Christians for centuries. After all, if Coulter's readers thought that Christians could support the separation of church and state, they might come to think that it isn't a black and white issue of Christians against godless heathens. From my reading of Coulter's columns, nuance is not something that exists in her world.

This is further underscored by the fact that she asserts that neither "Americans" nor "churchgoers" belong to Americans United for the Separation of Church and State. So it's not just the leadership which is unAmerican and unChristian, but the entire membership as well. I guess she includes them among the disloyal traitors who are out to ruin this country - or at least her vision of this country. Of course, with all of the insulting and obvious distortions she needs in order to make her arguments, it seems unavoidable that her vision for America is nothing worth having.

Ann Coulter should try writing just a single column that says something positive and refrains from either attacks others or misrepresenting facts. I fear, though, that her head might explode from the effort.

Read More:

• Religious Right
• Christian Nationalism
• Religious Intolerance & Bigotry
• Separation of Church and State 101
• Ten Commandments