Note: I wrote this two years
ago, but didn’t post it, because of some pretty significant events. Namely, the
election of an open White Nationalist to the presidency, due in large part to
the collaboration of white Evangelicals. So I wrote about that. I got
distracted last year, and totally forgot to post it. So this year, I am posting
it on the two year anniversary.
***
This is not a eulogy. It is an accusation - an indictment of
an evil person, and of those of my parents’ and grandparents’ generation who
took her poison to their bosom.
***
From Merriam Webster:
Hypocrisy: a feigning to
be what one is not or to believe what one does not; especially : the
false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion
From Jesus Christ:
"And you experts in the law,
woe to you, because you load people down with burdens they can hardly carry,
and you yourselves will not lift one finger to help them.” (Luke 11:46)
***
Phyllis Schlafly has
finally died.
While I do not rejoice in anyone’s death, I do breathe a
sigh of relief when someone who has done great evil in the world becomes unable
to do so anymore. The damage remains, however. I write this post so that we can
remember the evil Schlafly stood for, and avoid perpetuating her poisonous
policies.
I deliberately started this post with a couple of
definitions of hypocrisy, because Schlafly was, more than anything else, one of
the biggest hypocrites of my lifetime. She also did immense - and perhaps
incalculable - damage to both the Republican Party and to Evangelicalism. The
Religious Right as a movement was co-founded by her, and the arguments she made
have become mainstream in both the GOP and Evangelicalism, unfortunately.
The two quotes above capture, in my opinion, two
complementary features of hypocrisy.
First, let me clarify that I do not define hypocrisy as doing one thing, then learning from that
mistake, and advising others to avoid it. All of us have embarrassing things we
have said and done that we regret. I certainly have. Growing past those things
is not hypocrisy - it’s improvement!
Rather, hypocrisy is holding others to a standard that you
do not hold yourself to. That’s in the dictionary definition. A great example
that I see all the time is upper middle class people who are always in debt and
financial trouble - but who love to lecture lower income people about their
budgeting failures. One standard for them - and a different one for us.
But I think Christ captures a second part, which is placing
burdens on others that you yourself didn’t have to bear, and refusing to help.
This is enjoying one’s privileges yet refusing to extend them to others. It’s
taking advantage of opportunities, while denying them to others. It’s a sense
of entitlement combined with a lack of compassion.
Schlafly exemplified
both of these facets of hypocrisy in spades.
***
A quick biography. Schlafly was born in 1924. During the
depression, her father lost his job and couldn’t find work (like so many in
that era - 25% unemployment…), so her mother worked to support the family.
Schlafly herself would enter the workforce after her college
education. At age 25, she married into a wealthy family. She would remain in
the workforce essentially her entire life - but she had the financial
independence which comes with hereditary wealth to set her own hours and do
what she wanted.
She entered the political fray, and spent the early part
battling against racial integration (as part of the self proclaimed “moral
conservatives” that defeated a anti-segregation plank in the Republican
platform of 1960.)
It was a later battle, however, which defined her. That
battle was for the defeat of the Equal Rights Amendment, which would have
forbidden discrimination on the basis of sex. The Amendment would fail to be
ratified by the states as a result of her efforts. (More on this later.)
She would then go on to form the Religious Right, primarily
with Paul Weyrich (who has admitted that it was support for segregation that
held the coalition together), Jerry Falwell, and Bob Jones Sr. (president of
the college of the same name - which only recently began to permit interracial
dating, and only then under duress.) Schlafly herself formed the Eagle Forum, a
political action group which would focus on opposition to Feminism.
Perhaps the most central idea to Schlafly’s activism was
that women belonged in the home, that childcare and housekeeping were primarily
“women’s work,” and that Feminism™ was the greatest threat to women. As I will
point out, this idea manifested in a number of ways, but in the political
sense, she opposed just about anything that would grant economic, political, or
social equality to women. (That’s the dictionary definition of Feminism, by the
way…)
But she didn’t live
that way.
At the same time she was telling other women that they
should stay home with their children rather than work, she was out lecturing,
running for Congress, writing, and generally not staying at home.
Who cared for her kids?
Well, it turns out that she had a full time housekeeper/nanny
who did that for her. This woman performed this function for decades. Schlafly
also had a personal assistant, which likely freed her up to set her own
schedule.
In a former era, this would be called “having servants.” Of course it is easier to do all the things
Schlafly did if you can pay someone to do the grunt work for you - and raise
your kids. But most women can’t afford that.
This is the textbook definition of a hypocrite. The standard
she imposed on others was not one she had to abide by herself. Of course not!
She was rich, so the rules really never had to apply to her.
Likewise, she placed the burden on other women, many of whom
couldn’t afford to stay home full time. By making “Stay at Home Mom” into
“God’s plan for all women,” she burdened millions of women with impossible
expectations. (And, as her political activism against policies which would ease
the burden on lower income women show, she had no intention of lifting a finger
to help.)
***
Now, about her legacy. As I see it, she damaged both the GOP
and Evangelicalism in a number of ways.
First, the political. Her work to keep integration out of
the GOP platform in 1960, which was Nixon’s first run, led eventually to Nixon
adopting the “
Southern
Strategy,” which was a rejection of the Republican heritage of supporting
the Civil Rights Movement and an embrace of White Nationalist voters, if not
always their policies. It is not a coincidence that pro-Segregation Whites switched
en masse from the Democrats to the
Republicans.
The founding of the Religious Right as a political force
likewise had reverberations which continue to this day. As Paul Weyrich said,
the
Religious Right was founded on a pro-Segregation basis, and only later
switched to an anti-abortion position. Schlafly too was instrumental in this
switch, as she made opposition to Feminism the central plank in her platform.
This idea that the ideal family was one where the man
brought home the bacon while the woman stayed home and kept house and raised
the kids wasn’t a Republican issue at the time. In fact, although it is hard to
believe now,
Nixon
came close to signing a bill for subsidized day care and paid family leave.
The Religious Right (and the
openly
racist Pat Buchanan) defeated that, and ever since, opposition to what many
of us consider basic family friendly policy has been vehemently opposed by the
Republican party.
You can see the results even now, with a spokesman for The
Toupee Who Shall Not Be Named claiming that what women care about most is that
their husbands have well-paying jobs.
(As I will show, this is nearly a direct quote from Schlafly.)
I’ll detail a few more policies which are directly drawn
from Schlafly’s advocacy below. Suffice it to say that
The
Toupee Who Shall Not Be Named turns out to be pretty much Schlafly’s
ideal candidate, as far as policies are
concerned.
As for the legacy within Evangelicalism, let me start with
this:
You would never know,
given the strong anti-feminist advocacy of the Religious Right and most
prominent Evangelical teachers, that 19th Century Feminism was actually an
Evangelical movement.
The shift started before Schlafly, of course. In the
aftermath of the Civil War, the conservative denominations within American
Christianity sadly retrenched around Segregation and Patriarchy as core
beliefs.
But it is important to remember that prior to the rise of
the Religious Right, Feminism wasn’t that controversial of an idea for most
Evangelicals. During World War II, many women entered the workforce while the
men were away at war - and many of them remained there afterward. The Equal
Rights Amendment wasn’t considered controversial either.
The Republican platform of
1956 expressly endorsed it. It had passed Congress by that time, and
had been ratified by 30 states before Schlafly took aim at it.
And the text of the Amendment isn’t - or shouldn’t be - all
that controversial.
Equality of rights under
the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on
account of sex."
That’s it. That’s the entire text. This is what Schlafly
couldn’t abide.
This is where the damage was done. American Evangelicalism
these days has a strong undercurrent of hostility toward Feminism. Often this
is based on a straw-man version of feminism which doesn’t exist except possibly
on the fringes. (I know a lot of feminists - including my wife - and the
caricature of the man-hating woman is a fiction. Even in my law practice, I
meet 1000 men who hate women for every woman I meet who hates men.)
There is also a veneration of the “stay-at-home mom” and an
idolatry of motherhood in Evangelicalism. I’ve pointed out before that this
essentially denies the higher levels of “godliness” to women in lower income
families.
Now let me turn to a few other things that Schlafly has said
and done.
***
A quick Google search turns up a whole bunch of, um, interesting things that Schlafly has said and done.
Here are a few:
Defended Joe Paterno,
who knew his assistant was raping young boys, but covered it up:
Clearly football is more important than stopping sexual
assault.
Blamed the Violence
Against Women Act for broken marriages:
“When marriages are broken by false allegations of domestic
violence, U.S.
taxpayers fork up an estimated $20 billion a year to support the resulting
single-parent, welfare-dependent families.” –
Schlafly,
Feb. 2011.
Did Schlafly
really believe
domestic violence was imaginary? Maybe. I find that upper middle class women of
a certain age are in deep denial that anyone else could be experiencing spousal
abuse. I get the feeling that Schlafly would rather have seen women get beaten
than that they get divorced. I also seem to recall (although I can’t find it)
that she, like the reality-challenged folks at the
Council
for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood believed that Feminism has increased
spousal abuse rates.
Except that VAWA and other laws have reduced domestic
violence significantly. The trend is actually very positive. Domestic Violence
has been on a long term decline, but has really dropped in the last couple of
decades, despite the fact that it is now more acceptable to report it. The
culture is changing for the better on this issue - and Feminism deserves much
of the credit.
Excused sexual
harassment and blamed the victims:
Yes, women ask to be harassed and assaulted, right? Only
“sluts” get harassed, right?
Said that the way to
prevent violence against women was for women to marry rather than have careers:
“So what’s the answer for women who worry about male violence?
It’s not to fear all men. It’s to reject the lifestyle of frequent 'hookups,'
which is so much promoted on college campuses today, while the women pursue a
career and avoid marriage.” -
Radio
address August 28, 2014
Yep, if women would just (unlike her, of course) stay out of
college and stay home instead...violence against them would go down. Really?
Said that husbands have
the right to rape their wives:
Because saying “I do” means you give up all bodily autonomy,
right? In her defense, the law reflected her view for far too long. That
doesn’t mean it is a right, or even remotely moral position to hold.
Said we don’t need to
ever have a female president:
“Our greatest presidents have all been men,” she said, “and
they’ve been very good for our country.”
Of course, we haven’t ever
had a female president, so we have no idea if they would have been
better than the man. One could as accurately have said “Our worst presidents
have all been men, and they were terrible for our country.” (Looking at you,
Andrew
Jackson and Warren Harding.)
The easy counterexample is England. On a percentage basis, who
has been better for England,
the kings or the queens? Just saying.
Called for increasing
the pay gap between men and women:
Again, say WHAT? But wait! This is what that Trump staffer
said too. It’s a worldview: men earn, women stay home. The real world has never worked that way, though,
particularly for lower-income families. As a friend pointed out, women of color
have always worked.
Called on Congress to
pass a resolution specifically privileging marriages where the woman doesn’t
work outside the home:
“Once Congress is on a roll to confer dignity, it should
confer an extra measure of dignity on the single-earner family, where a
provider-husband is the principal breadwinner and his wife is dedicated to the
job of homemaker, a role more socially beneficial than working in the paid
labor force.” -
Newspaper
column in 2015
This was part of a column condemning same-sex marriage, by
the way. Apparently, the point of “traditional” marriage to her was in large
part the preservation of gender roles.
And again, never forget that SHE didn’t stay home with her
children and housework. She paid someone to care for her children and clean her
house.
Argued against paid
family leave:
She made the ludicrous claim that it would only benefit “
highly-paid,
two-earner yuppie couples” who could afford to take the time off without
pay. Never mind, of course, that those would would benefit the most would
actually be lower income women.
Called for the
elimination of Title IX:
This is the law which prohibits sex discrimination in
education. She also called for a combination of quotas and elimination of
student loans
to
reduce the percentage of women in college. The hypocrisy of a highly
educated woman seeking to deny the opportunity to other women is astounding.
Opposed
scientifically accurate Sex Ed:
Actually, it turns out that comprehensive sex education and
readily available contraception has resulted in a significant
decrease in both teen pregnancy and
abortion rates in the last couple of decades. There is ample and increasing
evidence that the key to reducing abortion is a combination of better education
and affordable contraceptives - particularly long-acting reversible
contraception - lowers both pregnancy and abortion rates. In addition,
accurate, consent-based education has been shown to be effective at delaying
first intercourse - and dramatically reducing sex between teens and older
adults.
Claimed that
enforcing child support judgments was bad for children:
Say WHAT? So, it’s better that fathers not pay child support? I think the argument here is that women
wouldn’t get divorces if they and their kids starved or something like that. I
don’t even know many people who make this argument. Sheesh! (Okay, this has
been a central plank in many ways of the “Men’s Rights Movement.” If women
couldn’t get child support from men, then they wouldn’t be so dang disobedient
to men’s wishes.)
This actually fits with Schlafly’s central belief about the
economics of male/female relationships, which is that men need to be the
primary earners, and women need to shut up and obey men. Except her, of course.
Opposed the teaching
of science:
I know I’m probably in the minority on this one within my
former Tribe, but I really don’t think we need to “protect” our children from
learning things such as Astrophysics, Paleontology, Biology, and so on. The evidence
is overwhelmingly in favor of an old universe, the Big Bang, biological
evolution, and so forth. (
I
blogged about this a few years back.) It’s not a conspiracy, and it isn’t
about “intolerance.” We do not teach a flat earth or geocentrism anymore either
- and it isn’t because of a conspiracy.
This is just one of many, many statements that it was easy
to find where Schlafly showed hostility toward non-Whites, immigrants, and poor
people. Here are a few more:
Called for banning
Latin American baseball players:
“Cut off visas for
foreign baseball players, and return our National Pastime to Americans,” the St. Louis native said in
a
radio segment in February. “When I was growing up, my favorite sport was
baseball. One of my most exciting memories was attending the World Series in
1944 between the St. Louis Cardinals and the St. Louis Browns. Baseball is a
wonderful activity for boys and young men. It helps develop mental discipline,
patience, and obeying rules. A lower percentage of professional baseball
players have post-career troubles compared with football and basketball
players, and baseball is a safer sport, too. The best baseball players today
are American-born. All six of the six recipients of the top awards this past
season are native-born American. But more than a quarter of Major League
Baseball players today are foreign-born, with whom our youth are less likely to
identify. Some of these players cannot speak English, and they did not rise
through the ranks of Little League. These foreign-born players enter on visas
and take positions that should have gone to American players. Fewer than four
percent of the Baseball Hall of Fame is foreign-born, yet 27 percent of today’s
players are.”
Every time I read that, I am astounded by the racism. And
the assumption that whites are the only true Americans.
Opposed (and
torpedoed) a plank in the 1960 Republican platform calling for an end to
segregation.
I mentioned this one above.
Argued that
anti-segregation laws were unconstitutional:
Oh
yes she did. This has ever since been a cherished belief of the fringe
right, from the loathsome Matt Walsh to the equally loathsome
Ron Paul. Never,
ever, forget that Schlafly began her political career fighting against racial
integration.
Never, ever forget.
Supported
vote-suppression laws:
By the way, you really should read the court’s opinion in
the case. The legislature
specifically
asked for racial statistics, then wrote the law to change only those things
that benefited African Americans. In case you were wondering, this is the case
that changed my mind on Voter ID laws. They are expressly intended to make it
harder for certain disfavored demographic groups to vote. There is a reason why
even
conservative judges are striking the laws down.
She repeatedly
referred to a Jewish internationalist conspiracy:
It was pretty easy to find quotes about the influence of “
financially
connected minorities” with “internationalist” goals. Um, this is classic
anti-Semitic code language used by the John Birch Society, among others.
(Schlafly was a John Bircher for a while, before deciding she had other
priorities.)
One final one on race I want to share. A friend of mine
worked in media a while back, and did a radio interview with Schlafly. During
the conversation, he brought up a current event: the push by Puerto Rico and
other US
territories for statehood. Schlafly was horrified
at the idea. The last thing she wanted was more of “those people.” Here is a
partial transcript, which my friend let me listen to.
Interviewer: (mentions Congressional hearing where American Samoa was
suggested as well)
Schlafly: Well we don’t want them either.
Interviewer (stunned): Why so?
Schlafly: Well that does nothing but cause trouble.
Interviewer: Okay.
Schlafly: Okay, have a good day. (Hangs up on him.)
The contempt dripping from her voice is palpable.
She basically
initiated the Religious Right’s political war on LGBTQ people.
I could spend plenty of time on this one, including the way
that she (and many other Religious Right leaders then and now) grossly
slandered LGBTQ people by claiming they were all child molesters out to get the
kids. I could mention that despite having
a gay son herself, she made opposition to any form of civil rights for
LGBTQ people a central plank of both the GOP and Evangelicalism. If you want to
look at the history of calls to deny LGBTQ people housing and employment and
government services, and so on, you will see the line go back to her. Maybe I
should mention that like modern day hate-mongers like Kevin Swanson (no
relation, thank God!), she too waxed nostalgic about the days when you could
kill and imprison people for gay sex.
I
have written about this before, and I stand by it: the obsession with sex
and the effort to deny LGBTQ people basic human rights, dignity, and access to
society has been a disaster for American Christianity, and will - in my opinion
- be a major reason that the next generation abandons the faith. When the focus
of your faith is harming people, you are going to alienate the decent people,
and attract the evil and violent sorts instead.
***
So many of these issues affect me and my friends and family.
I discussed the ones related to sex discrimination in employment in my review
of Gillian Thomas’ excellent book,
Because
of Sex. I have friends and family who would have lived under Jim Crow
had Schlafly had her way. I have clients who have had issues getting ID due to
destruction of birth records, and would be excluded from their right to vote. I
know many who have been victims of domestic violence, and benefited from VAWA
and other laws which take domestic violence seriously. I myself have benefited
from parental leave. Many, many people I know and love rely on the income from
women. And that includes me. I have a wife who works. I have LGBTQ friends and
family who would suffer under the laws Schlafly promoted.
I also have suffered harm as a result of Schlafly’s
teaching. A significant source of conflict with certain friends and family has
been the fact that my wife does not adhere to the gender roles that Schlafly
promoted. For everyone else, not her, of course.
***
Hypocrisy.
It’s pretty obvious, isn’t it? She holds other women to a
different standard than she was willing to meet.
And talk about denying others the privileges she had. Maybe
it was because she married money, which seems to make one entitled. (In fact,
the most entitled people I work with in my practice are the wives of rich men.)
She of course was supported in luxury. The women that needed
to work to survive, well, they just weren’t as good as her. She enjoyed living
in the United States,
but those brown skinned people that wanted the same? No way. Nothing good ever
happens when you let those people in. Other women want to escape abuse? No
dice. VAWA is bad for marriages. She could take a break from her work to give
birth and recover. But other women shouldn’t have that. Unless they found
richer husbands. College was fine for her,
but most women should be discouraged from doing the same. I’m sure she would
have objected had she been denied housing or health care because of her
religion. But denying the same to LGBTQ people? Not just fine, but what we should do. And then throw in the
opposition to desegregation...
Her entire political career can be summed up as an ongoing
attempt to be sure that she and others like her got privileges that would then
be denied to others.
This is the textbook definition of hypocrisy.
***
The rise of Donald
Trump
As I researched this, I was struck by just how much Schlafly
and Trump were alike. Le Toupee too has, um, distinct opinions on the role of
women. He may be more vulgar about it, but he too believes women should focus
on reproduction and housekeeping. (And he too has a fondness for farming the
work out to nannies and servants…) He too dismisses sexual harassment. Hey,
just get a different job - or better yet stay home. He too believes that the
man earning the money is the way things should be. I don’t think I even need to
draw the parallels on racial issues. His whole campaign could be Schlafly’s
views proposed as legislation.
It is no accident that she endorsed Trump. And it is no
accident that white Evangelicalism voted for him to the tune of about 80%. He
isn’t really that different than she, and he largely represents the “values”
that dominate Evangelical culture.
And it is due in significant part to her efforts that
Evangelical culture DOES share the “values” of Donald Trump. She set this up
over decades. White middle-class privilege as “godliness.” Gender Roles as the
Gospel™. Antagonism and fear toward brown skinned people. Hatred of LGBTQ
people. Hostility toward Feminism. The whole shebang.
And then, someone came along who represented the real values held by white Evangelicalism,
but without the pretty and pleasant exterior, and everyone fell in line behind
him.
***
Schlafly is losing in the long run, and she
may take Evangelicalism down with her.
I’m not fond of politics in the first place, and I really do
not care what happens to the GOP. They made their bed, and have become the
party of old racist white people. That was their choice, and they will live or
die with it.
What I am more concerned about is the long-term and horrific
damage that Schlafly and the other founders of the Religious Right did to
American Evangelicalism. More than anything, the Religious Right has made good
on the guarantee that it would deliver votes to the GOP no matter what.
No matter how opposed the policies are to the teachings of
Christ. And, as it turns out, no matter how evil the candidate. Open racism?
Eh, Evangelicals will still vote for you. Dead refugees? Children in cages?
Evangelicals won’t care about those
people. Not really.
That’s Schlafly’s
true legacy.
In the greater culture, however, she is losing. Despite her
best attempts, feminism is winning. Because it works. Domestic violence is way
down. Because of feminism, not because Schlafly got women to avoid college.
Speaking of that, women are seeking education in increasing
numbers, and the opportunities available to them are greater than ever. The pay
gap is decreasing. And, on a related note, men are increasingly willing to take
on the “women’s work” of childcare and housework. (Hey, I’m one of those guys!
Caring for children is wonderful, and I am grateful that I can work modest
hours and be with them more.)
Ultimately, most of the goals of the ERA are being realized
through other legislation, such as Title IX and various state laws forbidding
discrimination on the basis of sex.
And, amazingly, the world has not fallen apart. Is there
room for improvement? Of course. And many of us are working toward those
improvements, rather than trying desperately to return to the past.
The problem is that the primary foe right now in the fight
against domestic violence is white Evangelicalism. The primary foe in the fight
to help refugees is white Evangelicalism. White Evangelicals are the problem in the fight against
racism, modern segregation, police brutality, and a host of other issues. The
main source of hostility toward brown skinned people turns out to be white
Evangelicals. The ones most eager to deny fellow humans employment and shelter?
White Evangelicals.
The risk here is significant: the Religious Right has made
religion all about a political agenda that many of us find loathsome. And we
are rejecting it. This is particularly true for people of color, younger
people, and people with a college education.
Many Christians I know are bemoaning the increase in the
number of people who are “nones.” This includes an increasing number of
atheists, of course, but also a lot who believe in the Divine, but shun
affiliation with religious groups. These Christians - white Evangelicals -
however, are the ones least likely to look in the mirror, and acknowledge that
white Evangelicalism is driving away people who have a conscience, who are
troubled by racism and xenophobia, who have grave doubts about the claim that
the Republican Party platform furthers the Kingdom of God, who eschew hatred of
others - even atheists and gays. There is a significant - and growing -
backlash against Schlafly’s hatred. And her intellectual and political heirs
are crying “persecution.” Which is laughable for many reasons,
many
of which Ben Corey lays out here. What really is happening is people are
revolted by religious bullying, or as I call it, being an “Asshole For Jesus,”
which is exactly what she made her political career doing. More and more of us
are saying, “
enough!” The question
isn’t whether we will reject religious bullying. It’s whether we will end up
leaving American Christianity all together. (
For
now, the answer for me and my family has been that no, we will no longer
participate in American “Christianity.”)
I’ve used the quote before, and I will continue to use it as
often as necessary. This was a comment on a video by John Piper wherein he
claims that Christianity teaches that women should stay and be beaten rather
than leave the marriage and press charges against the abuser:
“Richard Dawkins wishes he
were as effective as this video at convincing people that Christianity is a morally bankrupt mess.”
Herein lies the problem - and Schlafly’s true legacy.
Richard Dawkins can
only wish and dream that he had been as effective as Phyllis Schlafly at
convincing people that Christianity is a morally bankrupt mess.
Not only did she spend her life demonstrating the moral
bankruptcy and hypocrisy of her religion, she did her level best to make
American [white] Evangelicalism the morally bankrupt mess it is today.
***
It isn’t too often one can truly say of someone that the
world is a far better place without them, but this is one of those cases. I do
not rejoice in her death, but breathe a sigh of relief that at least one
viciously racist person can no longer spew bile in this world.
So, Ms. Schlafly, farewell to this life, and may you find a
better mercy than you were willing to bestow on others. May you find a truer
justice than you accorded to others. And may you escape the hate that you
poured out on others.
And that, my friends, is the best I can do.
***
I haven’t believed in the Evangelical version of hell since
Junior High. (I read C. S. Lewis’ book,
The
Great Divorce then.) There are many reasons for this, one of which is laid
out pretty well by
John
Pavlovitz in this post. Another is that it seems to be an Evangelical wet
dream of a revenge fantasy to be inflicted on all those outside of the tribe.
But if there is an Evangelical hell, Jesus Christ himself made it abundantly
clear that our destiny doesn’t hang on whether we pray the right prayer: it’s
how we treat the least of these, including immigrants, the poor, the
incarcerated, and the ill. On that basis, IF there is an Evangelical hell, then
Phyllis Schlafly is assuredly burning there right now.
I am more or less an annihilationist. I believe that
someday, all of us will receive (as we lawyers say) full and complete
disclosure. We see but through a glass, darkly. Someday, we see face to face.
And we will have a chance to choose. Will we give up the evil part of us and
enter into fellowship with the Divine? Or will we choose to give up existence.
I believe that there are many who, faced with the prospect of being equal to -
or worse, lower than - all those people they hated and oppressed during their
lifetimes, will choose annihilation. I believe Hitler will choose that, rather
than live with constant reminders of what he did.
I believe Phyllis Schlafly will likewise choose that. I hope
she doesn’t, but I think she lived her life with her entire identity wrapped up
in preserving her own privilege. Without that, she had nothing to live for.
***
Comment policy: Please read my comment policy before
commenting. In particular, I will not tolerate any hate speech in the comments.
I also will not tolerate any arguments regarding the morality of homosexuality.
I’ve heard the arguments a million times. And I don’t think they matter in the
context of our behavior toward our neighbor. Seeking to harm someone is hate.
Feel
free to read my longer post on this issue.
