Oh, my God. It’s Phyllis Schlafly.
There’s a name I hadn’t heard, and a face I hadn’t seen, in a very long time. She was about to be interviewed by Bill Maher on REAL TIME WITH BILL MAHER. www.hbo.com
Phyllis Schlafly is a famous anti-feminist, anti-abortionist who’s been doing her thing since the early 1940’s.www.eagleforum.org
I remembered her from the seventies and I know it’s hard to believe, but when I saw her I could swear she was wearing the same satin suit she wore the last time I saw her, somewhere in the vicinity of 1979. She had the same upswept, plastered hairdo and the same condescendingly mocking smile. And let me tell you, that’s something you miss, a good condescendingly mocking smile. There were more wrinkles, of course, and she’d lost some pigment. She wasn’t quite as quick, but there was no doubt about it, it was Phyllis Schlafly.
Could Anita Bryant be far behind?
If you check out the c-span video link on www.eagleforum.org you can learn a lot during the interview with Phyllis. The 3 hour interview with Phyllis. Do yourself a favor and make a couple of drinks. That way, it’ll be easier on you when she regales you with how she “worked my way through college at an ammunition plant. I fired rifles and machine guns. I did only ammunition tests before the ammunition was accepted by the government. I sometimes fired 5000 rounds in one day.”
She uttered the most disturbing words when she was talking about her duties performing the “accuracy tests, the velocity tests, the penetration tests…”
The penetration tests…
Then let her beguile you with statements like “Feminism is a dead end road that ends in bitterness”, although she clarifies that one by adding, “If you look at the feminists whom I debated 15-20 years ago, they don’t have the wonderful things I have, which are 14 grandchildren.”
On second thought, better make three drinks…
She was on Real Time to promote her new book,
“The Supremacists…The Tyranny Of Judges And How to Stop It”
“The Supremacists…The Tyranny Of Judges And How to Stop It”
Phyllis asserts these “supremacist” judges are “re-making our culture” by passing laws which re-define America. In essence, they’re “re-writing the constitution”. In fact, Phyllis, they’re merely reading it.
She then says “We want to pass legislation which will deny American judges from having jurisdiction in such areas as the pledge of allegiance and marriage”.
Aw, Phyllis, is that all? Why didn’t you just say so?
The problem, I feel, for people like Phyllis Schlafly is freedom. Freedom is a scary thing for people with closed, self focused minds. It means that at any moment you may see or hear something you find offensive. And people like Phyllis, who advocate the cleansing of America, are not mature enough to realize that words are just words and pictures are just pictures. They haven’t evolved enough to understand that it’s not right, or necessary, to restrict the way other people live their lives. People like Phyllis Schlafly want to live your life for you. People like Phyllis fight to keep God on the tongues of students, rather than in the privacy of their minds, where it belongs.
Freedom doesn’t translate to creating laws that enforce your particular version of morality. It doesn’t mean your morality is my morality or even that you have the smallest right to define it for anyone other than yourself. It certainly doesn’t mean restrictive legislation based on personal belief. A belief is nothing more concrete than that, it’s an idea, a concept. It shouldn’t be legislated. Surely, by now, we should have come to understand this.
Freedom doesn’t translate to creating laws that enforce your particular version of morality. It doesn’t mean your morality is my morality or even that you have the smallest right to define it for anyone other than yourself. It certainly doesn’t mean restrictive legislation based on personal belief. A belief is nothing more concrete than that, it’s an idea, a concept. It shouldn’t be legislated. Surely, by now, we should have come to understand this.
Phyllis went on to say that law in America is “based on the ten commandments”, which prompted Maher, clearly ready for this, to point out that only two of the ten commandments, “Thou Shall Not Kill” and “Thou shall not steal” were in fact, actual laws.
Realizing her unexpected failure in the arena of truth, Phyllis surrendered. “All right,” she said, “but what’s the matter with having a monument to the ten commandments in a building somewhere?”
Ideally there’s nothing wrong with a monument of the ten commandments somewhere, as long as government doesn’t pay for it.
Meanwhile, back at the white house ranch, GW and affiliated cronies have created the
“Faith Based & Community Initiative” www.whitehouse.gov/government/fbci/index.html
This can be a fascinating read, with brilliant contradictions such as the following,
“The Federal government does not fund religion – instead, the President’s Faith Based & Community Initiative enables some of America’s most effective social service providers to compete fairly for Federal funding…”
“From 2002 to 2003, funding to first time, faith-based grant recipients doubled at HUD to $113 million.”
GW has suggested we allocate nine million dollars for religious organizations, instead of the already un-constitutional one million. So when Phyllis throws out “what’s wrong with a monument…” it’s lame and condescending. She’s not trying to get a random monument erected, she’s working to create laws which will deny judges the right to rule.
So now Phyllis, unaware she’s exhibiting the first signs of dementia, goes on to say, “Ok, we’re not asking the judges to rule on the basis of the ten commandments, we’re asking them to rule on the basis of the constitution”.
Then Maher asked, “Does it say in the constitution that marriage is only between a man and a woman?”
“No, no it doesn’t." she answered, "but the constitution does not give the judges the power to define marriage”.
And there it is.
Phyllis doesn’t even notice her hypocrisy. She doesn’t understand that the statement “…the constitution does not give the judges the power to define marriage” can be used against her, as the constitution doesn’t give her the right either. The truth of what’s happening at this point in our history is many judges no longer feel the pressure of socialized prejudice. They are, in fact, making rulings on controversial issues based on our constitution. If the constitution doesn’t say anything about marriage then shouldn’t it be clear that who gets married is not up for debate? Unfortunately, it’s simply managed to be controlled by a group of massively selfish people who are maybe, just maybe, finally being revealed much more often than they’re comfortable with.
Back to Phyllis…“Look, we don’t want supremacist judges changing the definition of marriage.” The truth Phyllis doesn’t even come close to realizing is that this "definition of marriage" she speaks of is the definition of one group of people, not all of us. Just because prejudice has been allowed to control the mindset and civil liberties of all Americans until recently, it doesn’t mean we have to let it continue.
We’ve come to a point in our American history when large groups of people are able to confront these and other long standing prejudices by bringing the matters before judges. Shockingly to people like Phyllis, these judges are making groundbreaking and sound decisions which threaten to reverse hundreds of years of oppression. These decisions are in fact based on our constitution. To argue against that is to reveal an ignorance of the very principals of America.
Conservatives, who in simpler times could rely on judges to enforce hatred and “lifestyle” control, are having to confront the thing they’ve pounded into our heads from day one, the constitution. Ironically, they’re using it to support their opinions, which in fact, it does not.
I ranted about the separation of church and state for a very long time. Then I began to hear people say that the statement “The separation of church and state” wasn’t even a part of our founding documents. I dismissed it. How could I have grown up hearing that and have it not be true? But after a particular debate where I was told again, I decided to find out for myself. I found it isn’t there.
I could have stopped, hung my head, sighed and said, “I’m defeated. I’ve been wrong all this time”. Instead, I read on. I found the issue of religion and government is addressed in two ways, both which support the separation of church and state. First is that government may not endorse any religion. Second is that no government money can be given to any religious institution. None.
A light of recognition has gone off for a large number of conservatives and misguided persons of religion in America. With the false “morality” they created barely hanging on in the midst of much more informed public, they are clearly anticipating the end of some of thier long standing control. They are attempting now to pass laws which will seal their ignorance and hatred in stone before they go the way of the dinosaurs.
I, for one, say bring on the asteroid…
