Phyllis Schlafly delivers another of her usual hysterical screeds, this time about how President Obama, who speaks constantly about his own religious faith, is trying to destroy all public expressions of faith in the United States.
When Barack Obama promised to “fundamentally transform the United States” we could not have anticipated the extreme transformations he would seek. The evidence is rolling in that he is determined to transform America into a totally secular land where religion is permitted only within the walls of a church, but is banned in every public place, public gathering and public school…
Barack Obama is trying to morph our traditional religious liberty to the lesser scope of freedom of worship. That means worship only inside a church, or maybe a synagogue, but not any public affirmation of belief in God.
And now, a word from reality. In February Obama spoke at the National Prayer Breakfast, talking about how his faith informed his politics. Only a few weeks later, he hosted a prayer breakfast to celebrate Easter at the White House. And one month after that, he issued a declaration of the National Day of Prayer, as he has done every year in office. Funny, he seems not to have noticed his own alleged campaign to destroy all public affirmations of belief in God.
But those are “facts,” which must never get in the way of a good paranoid rant. Not to worry, though, Schlafly’s ignorant followers are allergic to facts.
26 comments
Skip to comment form ↓
regexp
July 19, 2012 at 9:04 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
No one plays victim better than evangelical christians.
Jasper of Maine (I feel safe and welcome at FTB)
July 19, 2012 at 9:07 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
God. There’s an equivocation of “public” as in walking around outside, and “public” as in government-ran.
hexidecima
July 19, 2012 at 9:07 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Ah Phyllis, the woman who showed me that women have no more “wisdom” than anyone else. It’s is nice to see that she can lie with the best of them, showing that even she doesn’t really believe in her imaginary friend. For all of the president’s supposed attempts at restricting Christianity, there are still at least a dozen Christian channels on my cable subscription that I can’t get rid of. I still have Christians shrieking on street corners and protesting whatever they want. And as Mr. Brayton has pointed out, I have a president that still panders to people like her.
gshelley
July 19, 2012 at 9:10 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
She actually does give some reasons, most of which I hadn’t heard. The few I do know about are either clear distortions, or just whining about Christianity not getting extra special treatment under Obama
thisisaturingtest
July 19, 2012 at 9:23 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I’ve fallen into the habit (almost a hobby) of commenting a fair bit on Media Matters for America’s articles, and one thing I’ve noticed is this- far-right-wing (and, TBF, a few left-wing) posters there have a habit (almost a hobby) of making assertions, and, when called on for evidence (sources, links, anything to back these assertions up), saying things like “these things are common knowledge, you must be living in a cave to not know them, the data is readily available, you look it up.” Almost invariably, if someone uses excuses like that to refuse to supply evidence* for their assertions, it’s because they haven’t got any. All they have are the assertions.
*Sometimes they get tricky, or try to. Occasionally, they’ll just restate the assertion in slightly different terms, and call that evidence. Or they’ll link to an article elsewhere which simply restates the assertion (a lot of times, that’s where they got it from in the first place), and call that evidence. To me, if your evidence in support of an assertion is just the assertion restated, then evidence and assertion cancel each other out; and both are just left floating uselessly and disconnected in space.
d cwilson
July 19, 2012 at 9:25 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
gshelley says:
Schlafly is a dominionist, so it’s not surprising that her biggest gripe is that Christianity isn’t being elevated to its sooper-dooper status as the Official Religion of America.
But like you, despite her claims, I haven’t seen any reduction in the number of politicians pandering to religion or making loud protestations of their faith.
Hell, just hop on over to Zingularity and you can see how the SC GOP is claiming that Jeebus practically wrote their platform.
slc1
July 19, 2012 at 9:31 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
This is the same Phillis Schlafly who once proclaimed that a woman who goes jogging in a sport bra and shorts deserves to be raped.
Modusoperandi
July 19, 2012 at 9:31 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
She forgot the rest of the dogwhistle!*
* “Muslims…” etc, etc, “…Shariah Law!”
billyeager
July 19, 2012 at 9:45 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I fixed it but you’re now down to four.
Tell you what, instead of struggling with ‘commandments’ from your Sky Daddy, why not, I dunno, maybe stick with ‘The Law’.
abb3w
July 19, 2012 at 9:52 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Interesting that a conservative like Schlafly seems to have trouble with the “thou shalt not covet” bits.
Abby Normal
July 19, 2012 at 10:01 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
thisisaturingtest @5, something about your post brings to mind this cake.
John Hinkle
July 19, 2012 at 10:11 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
So, Schlafly thinks that her privileged religion’s ability to impose itself on others is being eroded.
And her point is?
Well, at least she referenced the other religion when she mentioned a synagogue.
Zinc Avenger (Sarcasm Tags 3.0 Compliant)
July 19, 2012 at 10:21 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@John Hinkle, #12:
Well of course. The Jews have to exist, because they are destined to be Divinely-caused collateral damage in Israel when the world ends.
longstreet63
July 19, 2012 at 10:26 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Too bad her complaints are not true.
I wish I could vote for a politician who things religions should stay in church and stop bothering people.
gshelley
July 19, 2012 at 10:33 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@Billyeager
I was including “do not take your name in vein as an anti-perjury law, which may be a bit of a stretch, but listening to Robert Price’s “The Human Bible” he was arguing that this may have originally referred to to lying under oath, ie saying “This is the truth so help me god” then lying about it. It’s a bit of a stretch, but I was trying my hardest to get to six.
reverendrodney
July 19, 2012 at 10:36 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
slc1 @ 7:
“This is the same Phillis Schlafly who once proclaimed that a woman who goes jogging in a sport bra and shorts deserves to be raped.”
She might be that Muslim cleric in Canada, in drag!
John Pieret
July 19, 2012 at 12:00 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@ gshelly #4:
Another ACLU-type judicial appointment made by President Obama was federal Judge Michael Urbanski.
Well, its not just the President’s fault. The Senate confirmed him in a vote of 94–0.
Urbanski’s suggestion was not totally crazy. The Supreme Court had stated in Stone v. Graham that:
The preeminent purpose for posting the Ten Commandments on schoolroom walls is plainly religious in nature. The Ten Commandments are undeniably a sacred text in the Jewish and Christian faiths, and no legislative recitation of a supposed secular purpose can blind us to that fact. The Commandments do not confine themselves to arguably secular matters, such as honoring one’s parents, killing or murder, adultery, stealing, false witness, and covetousness. … Rather, the first part of the Commandments concerns the religious duties of believers: worshipping the Lord God alone, avoiding idolatry, not using the Lord’s name in vain, and observing the Sabbath Day.
Urbanski suggested that cutting out the first four, explicitly religious, commandments (showing that the Giles County school board was using the Protestant version, which should have been enought to demonstrate that posting them in a public school was unconstitutional) might leave only arguably secular commandments. I don’t think that would have worked because the others are clearly recognizable as coming from a religious document that is being endorsed by the government.
d cwilson
July 19, 2012 at 12:08 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I can cut the ten commandments down to just one:
Don’t be a dick.
thisisaturingtest
July 19, 2012 at 12:26 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Abby, @#11:
mmmmmm, cake.
feralboy12
July 19, 2012 at 1:29 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I’m a bit surprised that she didn’t call Obama out for the way he threw the Rev. Wright under the bus to appease his “secularist” followers in 2008.
d cwilson
July 19, 2012 at 4:37 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
feralboy12 @20:
Because that would require her to admit that Wright was a Christian minister and not a secret Muslim imam.
Keep your eyes on the prize and remember that the goal is to cast any doubt that Obama is a legitimate Christian.
imthegenieicandoanything
July 19, 2012 at 5:49 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Luckily, I don’t think about her much, or remember such a being has human form, but Phyllis Schlafly may be the worst human being alive, all things considered.
Modusoperandi
July 19, 2012 at 6:55 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
imthegenieicandoanything “Luckily, I don’t think about her much, or remember such a being has human form, but Phyllis Schlafly may be the worst human being alive, all things considered.”
In every town, on every street, righteous indignation in hand, standing at the ready to tell you what you’re doing wrong, there’s a Church Lady.
bmiller
July 19, 2012 at 7:20 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
feralboy12: That’s because the Wright episode had nothing to do with appeasing the secularists.
The religion Obama was catering to in THAT episode was the (arguably pagan) nationalist religion of “American Exceptionalism”, which the good reverent Wright was DARING to question. So…of course Wright had to go. We cannot question AMERICA, THE LIGHT OF THE WORLD.
Dr X
July 19, 2012 at 10:31 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
eh–she made a business out of being a lunatic after she discovered there was money to be made campaigning against the ERA. When that project folded she had to mount new campaigns and make lunatic pronouncements to appeal to wingnuts.
About thirty years ago I attended a debate between Schlafly and Karen DeCrow. I think they had a traveling college road show that would attract 500 maybe 1000 per show. The whole thing seemed like performance art. Schlafly visibly relished saying ever more nutty things bouncing off straight[wo]man DeCrow while the entire audience hooted and laughed her (Schafly) every time she finished a ridiculous point. It was as if she knew she was a caricature and milked it for everything she could.
dan4
July 19, 2012 at 11:22 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
That means worship only inside a church, or maybe a synagogue…”
What’s with the weird “maybe” qualifier? Is Schafly hinting that Obama possibly wants to eliminate religious liberty for Jews, even in the context of a private worship service?