Religious right pretends that Obama has a ‘God-talk’ problem

So here’s a common urban legend on the religious right, stated here by Phyllis Schlafly:

Every time [President Obama] recites the Declaration of Independence, he omits the word “Creator.” Now we all know what’s in the Declaration and it’s very strange, you can’t blame it on a slip of the tongue or blame it on the teleprompter because he does it all the time.

It’s terrible that the president keeps misquoting the Declaration. And it’s especially terrible that the word he keeps leaving out — “Creator” — is a reference to God.

President Obama, apparently, has a God-talk problem.

Except that he doesn’t. Phyllis Schlafly is lying.

President Obama quotes that section of the Declaration of Independence a lot. A lot. And he quotes the whole thing, every time.

And the fact that he does so doesn’t change the accusations made against him by people like Phyllis Schlafly.

Now, when those accusations start to pile up, some pundits will call on the president to start quoting this passage and saying “endowed by their Creator” even more. They urge him to just start saying it a ridiculous number of times until Schlafly and the religious right can no longer plausibly claim that he’s never said it.

It’s a charmingly optimistic response: “Come on, we’ll show ’em the truth!”

The problem with that advice is twofold: 1) It presumes, inaccurately, that these people care about the truth — that their complaint is being made in good faith and is not an explicit lie told for explicitly political reasons; and 2) Schlafly et. al. will claim that Obama has only just now begun saying this due solely to their attacks, and only because they called him out on it. And thus they’ll spin it around and begin attacking him every time he says “endowed by their Creator.”

That’s frustrating, but that’s how it works when you’re dealing with bad-faith actors who half-justify their lying by reassuring themselves that lying for Jesus is a Good Thing if it helps to defeat the evil baby-killing liberals. So they’ll keep attacking Obama for never saying “Creator” until that lie becomes to obvious to continue, at which point they’ll start attacking him for only saying it because they forced him to and for not really believing it or some such. But they won’t stop attacking him, that’s just who they are and what they do.

And of course these folks don’t just spread lies about the president. They spread such lies about everyone they perceive to be evil liberals — including any Christians who fail any of their ever-multiplying culture-war litmus tests. They say that such people are not really Christians — that they hate Jesus and disrespect the Bible.

That can be exhausting. And it’s exasperating if you happen to be a politically liberal Christian who loves Jesus and respects the Bible.

I suspect that such exhaustion and exasperation is part of what led to Tony Jones’ recent challenge to progressive Christian bloggers to include more visible, explicit “God-talk.” It’s that same optimistic “Come on, we’ll show ’em who we really are!” response.

But again, this response is doomed because they don’t care who we really are. They’re not accusing us in good faith. They’re not attacking us based on anything we’ve said or done, and so nothing we say or do will prevent them from continuing to attack us and continuing to accuse us of whatever it is they need to say to portray us as the bogeyman they need us to be.

That’s just who they are and what they do. And no amount of God-talk will change that.

"At best you are admitting the Dems are no better than the republicans. Surprise, surprise."

Smart people saying smart things (1.19)
"You mean the US president? He supported the bill. The Dems in the senate did ..."

Smart people saying smart things (1.19)
"I know, I know, you can’t dispute the facts of the situation.Dems screwed us over ..."

Smart people saying smart things (1.19)
"Also ignored is the FACT that throwing a tantrum and refusing to vote for something ..."

Smart people saying smart things (1.19)

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • aunursa

    Apparently there were one or two instances back in 2010 in which the president omitted the words “endowed by our Creator.”  Nevertheless, it’s a lie for Sclhafly or anyone else to suggest that every time he quotes the relevant portion of the Declaration, President Obama skips over “Creator.”

  • AnonymousSam

    Given the importance of the character of the President of the United States, I wish Obama could just sic an army of lawyers on these people and piledrive their finances right into the ground (read: bring them down to the majority class), then take that wealth and mail it out as a stimulus check.

    So says the raging socialist side of my brain.

    Seriously, the president of the country should not be constantly placed in a position where he could legitimately and with high probability of winning- sue someone for slander, libel, and defamation of character. The blatant disrespect they show him is absurd.

    Bush was an idiot in many ways. Romney is an idiot in many ways. But we don’t need to stoop to ad hominem to make a point against them; every time they open their mouths, out comes a perfect example of how these conclusions have been drawn. In order to attack Obama, these nitwits have to make up things about him. That’s just enraging.

    Criticize his policies if you wish. At least those facets of his presidency exist.

  • Matri

    Criticize his policies if you wish. At least those facets of his presidency exist.

    But that means pandering to Reality.

    And everyone knows Reality is liberal!

  • stePH

     Reality may be liberal, but Obama isn’t.

  • Matri

    Reality may be liberal, but Obama isn’t.

    Yeah, but quoting facts and reality is liberal.

    Only real conservatives use made-up accusations!

  • FearlessSon

    Seriously, the president of the country should not be constantly placed in a position where he could legitimately and with high probability of winning- sue someone for slander, libel, and defamation of character. The blatant disrespect they show him is absurd.

    I kind of wish that there was some legal organization that actually would sue people for slander, libel, and defamation of character.  There are genuine cases here.  Sure, there is plenty to criticize about actual administration policy or the character of the one who holds the office, and one is free to do that as much as one wishes.  But come prepared to argue reality, and do not expect false witness to be allowed without sanction.  

  • Wingedwyrm

    It’s also worth noting that there’s a 3rd problem.  And, that’s that some people are so enmeshed in their positions, so deeply engrained into their belief system that they’re the good guys and other people are the bad guys, that they’re not even consciously aware of the lieing.

    I go to my customer service experience a lot, here.  But, I’ve seen this a lot in customers.  They’ll do anything they can to put the rep on the line on the defensive against the perseption of any rudeness.  So, they’ll respond to discussing a mistaken charge by, ever time the charge is brought up saying “I didn’t accept that charge”, thus creating a semantic hoop to jump through just so a conversation can happen.  This continues unto the point at which the semantic hoop-jumping takes up more time in the conversation than actual conversation.

    These aren’t, for the most part, people with an actual plan in mind.  They’re people acting instinctively, going on the attack with whatever they have, real or imagined, that they think might make the CS rep, or the political figure in this case, feel a need to make a concession.  And, if it’s imagined, they don’t let go, not because they’re lieing, but because lieing would actually be a step up, both in terms of basic manners and basic ethics.

    So, problem three is the very real possibility that the people we would want to “correct” don’t care enough about the truth to tell a lie.  Not that they’re sociopaths who knowingly say whatever it is that will work out for them, but that their so enmeshed in an us-v-them mentality that they just never work out to the point where they might ask the question of whether or not the first thought that entered their head and reality at all resemble each other.

  • FearlessSon

    That reminds me of my retail job after college.  I found that a lot of customers would rather be seen as angry and confrontational than seen as ill-informed or stupid.  For example, if the customer asks for something and they get the name of the product wrong, correcting the customer tends to produce an angry response.  They will often dig in their heels and insist that you are wrong, or if you demonstrate by actually fetching the product in question, they will just resort to ad-hominems.  

    I have to wonder if the punditocracy has a similar reaction, and the bases they speak to reflect that.  

  • Wingedwyrm

    My hypothesis is that it’s all so fast that thought doesn’t have time to enter into it.  People react to the suggestion “You’re wrong about…” as though it’s an attack.  Correcting somebody on anything is instinctively felt to be a dominant or aggressive action so some people, people for whom feeling powerful is instinctively important, respond with counter-aggression to reassert dominance.

    These very same people who respond with insults when you, I assume quite politely, correct them aren’t making a choice between being seen to be incorrect and being seen to be confrontational.  To them, according to my hypothesis, they’re just responding to your aggression.

    This applies to Phyllis Schafley in that, if the hypothesis holds true and applies, she isn’t lieing when she says that Obama omits the reference to the creator every single time.  She’s expressing her dominance over Obama through correcting him.  Seen in that light, it doesn’t matter whether the error that she’s correcting even exists.

    And this would mean that problems 1 and 2 still give Phyllis Schafley too much credit.  It’s not that she doesn’t care about reality.  It’s that she hasn’t thought enough about what she’s doing to even recognize that reality is a thing.

  • Jamoche

    For example, if the customer asks for something and they get the name of the product wrong, correcting the customer tends to produce an angry response.

    If I got upset every time I got a word wrong, my blood pressure would skyrocket. Who’d guess that politeness would be a side effect of minor aphasia?

  • Dave


    Who’d guess that politeness would be a side effect of minor aphasia?

    * raises hand *

    My bout with aphasia a few years ago (after suffering some brain damage) reinforced in me the habit controlling the pace and tone of my participation in verbal exchanges, rather than letting other people define that pace and tone by the way they engaged with me.

    This isn’t quite the same thing as politeness, but the two are strongly linked… while it’s certainly possible for me to be both rude and in control of my verbal interactions, it’s not possible for me to be both polite and out of control.

    For example, one side-effect of that was rendering me much less prone to a certain kind of conversation failure, where my interlocutor and I ratchet one another up to the point where we’re yelling at each other and turning red in the face, and each of us is convinced that the other one “started it.” I still succumb to this sometimes, but not nearly as often as I used to.

  • aunursa

    And apparently other leaders, including Reagan, Eisenhower, and Coolidge, also omitted “by their Creator” in at least one speech. 

  • Wingedwyrm

    Semantic loopholes are a way of controlling the conversation.  Create a semantic loophole for someone, especially someone in a somewhat submissive position within the conversation (and President to electorate is in a submissive position) and you have the control of what concepts can be expressed, or at the very least how easily which concepts can be expressed simply or within a quick timeframe.

    Given the day’s soundbite culture where, even a long, drawn out conversation that goes into depth of consept will be broken down then into soundbites, making one’s opponent’s positions more difficult to explain or longer to explain is a disingenuous way of giving your own side the edge.

    It’s the steroids of political debate.  It’s counter to the very nature of what is supposed to be happening, but it makes for a good show, so people who want to be entertained but don’t care about what’s happening will go along with it and even prefer it to the purer and more honest contest.

  • Dan Audy

    Sueing for libel, slander, or defamation of character are generally losing propositions in the US.  

    The Streissand effect typically gives the lies greater visibility across more populations than the original slander had which means that unless it is a extremely widespread lie it is ‘easier’ to just let it smolder away.  While lack of a ‘loser pays’ legal system means that lawsuits against people for defamation etc are only the province of the wealthy or, if against a deep pocketed target, the super wealthy.  The combination of those basically make the cost (in reputation, time, and money) too high for anything but the most egregious, bald-faced lie and those are typically pretty obvious to anyone who isn’t already deeply invested in the defamer.

  • PJ Evans

     If you’re a public person (meaning, as I understand it, well-known to the public), the laws about libel and slander work differently.

  • Jessica_R

    The religious right are pretty much masters at the game of Move the Goalposts. Since it’s not about any genuine sense of ethics or moral values with them but just plain winning.

  • Darryl Stringer

    A Facebook friend posted an image claiming that in 2011 Romney donated 16% of his income to charity, and Obama donated just 1%. I showed this guy proof that this was false (Obama’s tax return), and he refused to acknowledge it or retract his lying. So I pushed him on it, and he promptly unfriended me.

    The lesson? Some people would rather spread lies that degrade their opponent than recognise the truth that they aren’t so bad after all.

  • Dave


    Some people would rather spread lies that degrade their opponent than recognise the truth that they aren’t so bad after all.

    Yeah, pretty much. From this point of view, the primary division is between statements that support my side and statements that oppose it. True and false (let alone likely and unlikely) is a distinction of at best secondary importance… if the statement doesn’t support my side, it no longer matters whether it’s true.
    This can often lead to an exchange that amuses me, where someone operating from this stance makes some such assertion like “My candidate does more X than your candidate!”, and I casually ask a question like “So, how important is that to you? I mean, hypothetically speaking, if I were to research the question and discover that, in fact, my candidate does more X than your candidate, would you switch sides?” and they suddenly get very, very nervous.

  • phantomreader42

     I learned that lesson years ago.  Some moron (illegally) forwarded a right-wing email hoax at work, and I showed him proof that it was a load of shit.  He openly admitted that he didn’t care if it was true or false as long as there was a chance it might make a Democrat look bad.  Citing that example was what made my idiot right-wing aunt stop sending me similar emails. 

    The truth is the Republican party’s mortal enemy. 

  • Turcano

    In other gobshite-about-Obama news: today I received a DVD out of nowhere titled Dreams from My Real Father: a Story of Reds and Deception.  I haven’t watched it out of fear of giving my laptop some horrible strain of computer AIDS, but research on it suggests that the premise is that Obama’s real father is labor activist Frank Marshall Davis, and I guess this is important because, unlike Judaism, socialism has to be inherited on the paternal side.  I would say that this claim is just as credible as can be expected coming from the groundbreaking filmmaker who brought us Elvis Found Alive and Paul McCartney Really Is Dead: the Last Will of George Harrison.  I can’t tell if this is for real, or the director is pulling a fast one on the studio, or if the studio is in on it;  the other two films are listed as mockumentaries, but this and another film are portrayed as legitimate. At this point we’re deep inside Poeville, heading for city center.

    I guess the next question is: who the donkeyboffing fuck sent this to me?  The return address only lists a “DFMRF, LCC,” which has no internet presence to speak of.  What kind of nutbar mailing list have I gotten myself on?

  • Seraph4377

    That reminds me of the rumor that Obama’s real father was Malcolm X.  The funny thing is that both Frank Marshall Davis and Malcolm X were native-born American citizens, so all question about Obama’s eligibility would evaporate if it were proven to be true.  Kinda shooting yourself in the foot there, birthers.

  • veejayem

    Ah, but they were the wrong sort of Americans. Plus the “birthers” wouldn’t recognise logic if it hovered directly above them and crapped on their heads.

  • PJ Evans

    Aren’t a lot of the people making these claims the same ones who quote the Declaration (not the Constitution) when people ask them about God’s role in the US government?

  • cjmr

    Why yes, yes, they are.  *wry face*

  • Anon Collie

    “The Matrix is a system, Neo. That system is our enemy. But when you’re
    inside, you look around, what do you see? Businessmen, teachers,
    lawyers, carpenters. The very minds of the people we are trying to save.
    But until we do, these people are still a part of that system and that
    makes them our enemy. You have to understand, most of these people are
    not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly
    dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it.”

    Let me see if I can’t restate Morpheus’ words about people wrapped up in these lies.

    “Culture wars are a system, Neo. That system saps this country’s life. When you look around, what do you see? Businessmen, teachers, lawyers, carpenters; people will the best of intentions but not the will nor the ideals to commit themselves to truth, no matter how much they don’t like that truth.
    Until they are ready to stop fighting imaginary dragons, they will fight to protect and preserve those culture wars. Some of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the faux feelings of doing ‘good’ for their faith that they will do anything, including lie, cheat, steal or even commit violence to defend it.”

    Yeah, I think that pretty much covers it.

  • Geds

     Until they are ready to stop fighting imaginary dragons, they will fight to protect and preserve those culture wars.

    It’s interesting.  I grew up Evangelical and internalized the idea of culture wars and everyone being out to get Christians.  I’m now an atheist and I haven’t darkened the door of a church in about four years, other than a wedding and a Christmas Eve service because, y’know, those are nice.  I also stopped participating in my old culture wars church about a year before I stopped going to church and went all liberal and mainline for a bit.

    Yet from time to time I still learn something and realized that I was totally wrong about it because I learned from the culture wars perspective.  This election cycle my tendency is to discover that I was completely wrong about some random aspect of the Clinton Administration.    The other day it was Vince Foster.  I read the real story behind that and suddenly realized that, oh, that made a lot more sense than the version I was told.

  • J_Enigma32

    Why does it matter whether or not he quotes the Declaration correctly? These assholes can’t tell the difference between that the Constitution anyway, and don’t realize that the Declaration has the legal consistency of so much wet toilet paper.

    The only law that matters is the Constitution; the only legal document from the American Revolution that matters is the Constitution. And there is no mention of “a Creator” in the Constitution and if you persist that there is, you’re a liar.

  • connorboone

    Actually, the Constitution did not arise out of the Revolution directly – we took a few years under the Articles of Confederation before we wrote the Constitution.

  • Tricksterson

    And if, as some have, you claim tthat the lack of a mention of God in the preamble was just an accidental oversight or that the founders didn’t put it in because they just assumed it was obvious you are either ignorant or a liar because there was extensive debate on the matter with a number of varying proposals.

  • LL

    Every time that old crone pokes her head out and opens her gaping piehole, I think, unhappily, “She’s still alive?” I know that’s kinda terrible, but she’s kind of a terrible person, so I don’t feel that bad about it. Little kids die of cancer, but Phyllis Schlafly still walks the earth. Sad. 

    RE libel, slander: yeah, if you’re a public figure, and esp. a politician, the law is kinda different for you. To collect any damages that could possibly outweigh the expense of paying a lawyer who specializes in libel law (they’re not cheap), you’d have to prove the libel harmed you. Lawsuits take a lot of time and money, I’m guessing that’s why most public figures don’t go that route. Plus, it’s an election year. I’d think Obama would not want to hand the Republican trolls a PR win by giving them an opportunity to claim he’s trying to silence them by violating their First Amendment right to free expression. And you know they would. 

  • FearlessSon

    you’d have to prove the libel harmed you.

    I would think that poll numbers correlating Obama’s popularity and the informed state of the voters might be example of harm.  If most of them dislike him because of demonstrably false information, I would certainly call that harm.  The elections have everything to do with perception.  

  • aunursa

    I would think that poll numbers correlating Obama’s popularity and the informed state of the voters might be examples of harm.

    I have been lectured repeatedly on this board that poll results are worthless.  Now I learn that there is an exception … when they can be used as evidence in a legal matter, in which case they prove libel?  I’m getting dizzy.  ;-)

  • Daughter

    I think it’s pretty silly, too. Politicians know what they’re getting into when they step into the arena.  The reason the standard for libel/standard is different for them is that they have such an impact on our lives that we need to be able to criticize them freely without fear. So unless the libel is something that could send them to jail or get them executed for treason, rather than simply harm their reputation or chances for reelection, then they need to deal with it. (That doesn’t mean that other citizens can’t challenge the critics when the criticism is false or unfair, just as Fred is doing here).

  • LL

    Harmed you in the sense that you were being accused of a heinous crime (like child molesting) or harmed your ability to make a living. Or harmed your ability to do your job. Chasing down every speck of bullshit spewed about Obama and prosecuting it would quickly be way more trouble than it’s worth. Obama’s a lawyer. If he wanted to pursue legal action vis a vis shit Republicans say about him, I feel sure he’d be doing it already. But that would be giving the bullshit even more PR than it gets already. He’s smart enough to know it wouldn’t do any good at all. 

  • Tricksterson

    “Every time that old crone pokes her head out and opens her gaping piehole I think, unhappily, ‘She’s still alive?'”

    As the bard Billy Joel said “Only The  Good Die Young”

  • LL

    And it’s true: it doesn’t matter what Obama or any other Not Republican says or does. The criticisms aren’t about what’s actually happening. They’re about what the liars can get millions of stupid voters to BELIEVE  is happening (because belief is superior to truth to many people). Millions of stupid voters who are too lazy to look anything up and verify (or disprove) what the liars say.

  • FearlessSon

    Millions of stupid voters who are too lazy to look anything up and verify (or disprove) what the liars say.

    Except it actually takes more effort to maintain that deception than it does to verify it.  How many of these people forward ridiculous emails that would take two minutes to debunk?  How many of them go out of their way to dismiss anything from a “biased” source other than some of those culture war gatekeepers or Fox News?  

    Burying one’s head in the sand is at least marginally more effort than looking up.  

  • aunursa

    How many of these people forward ridiculous emails that would take two minutes to debunk?

    I get them all the time.  In emails and on Facebook posts.  From both the left and the right.  I politely remind them: Snopes and Google are our friends. 

    Alas, most of them don’t learn.  (Or they refuse to investigate.)

  • Liz Coleman

     I got called “prissy” when I pointed my uncle to Snopes.

  • TheFaithfulStone

    who the donkeyboffing fuck sent this to me?

    DFMRF, LCC –  I bet we can figure this out.  Clearly the first two letters stand for “Donkeyboffing Fuck” (which is my new favorite phrase, btw.)

    Slacktivist hive mind, engage!

  • SisterCoyote

    This is more or less irrelevant; I don’t have anything to say about the above that can really be said in polite society (besides “RAAARGH” and all its ilk, but that’s not so much productive as cathartic, and less cathartic when typed.), except possibly full agreement that it is utterly ridiculous how these lies are spreading, and they’re SO EASY to debunk, but they still get believed, and my grandparents forward me outraged Morning Bell articles about it and I respond with ten links to different speeches where the basis is contradicted and their response boils down to “The Truth Has A Liberal Bias,” and RAAARGH. (Oh also they keep sending forwarded links to Washington Post articles, subtitled “Even the liberals are getting upset with Obama! See, this Seriously Left-Wing Liberal Media Liberal Paper agrees!” Aaand I don’t know how to tell them that no, no the Washington Post hasn’t been a left-leaning paper in a very long time.) BUT ANYWAY.

    I’ve been rereading Kim Stanley Robinson’s Mars Trilogy (very highly recommended, btw), and I can’t help but picture the Phyllis of the First Hundred every time someone mentions Phyllis Schafly. This is, for once, a convenient literary doppleganger, since the First Hundred Phyllis, whose last name I can’t recall, so very closely mirrors everything I’ve seen Phyllis Schafly say.

    …now where the hell are our universe’s Arkady, John, Nadia, Vlad, Art, and Nirgal, dammit?

  • TheFaithfulStone

    @45672916e02cfaba6459973f8ff3b491:disqus has part of the inside scoop here.  People don’t so much think to themselves “Well, reality has a well known liberal bias” so much as they start from a different reality.

    In a way, this is like mental illness.  Mentally ill people (most of them anyway) aren’t irrational.  If you ask them what 2 + 2 is they don’t say chair – they’re capable of rational thought – it’s just that the base level assumptions that they start with are totally out of whack.  By way of example, I am very close to a bipolar schizophrenic who was POSITIVE that her daughter had been replaced by a space-robot.  She was absolutely sure of this, and given the ASSUMPTION that space-robots exist and are able to replace your loved ones, her argument was pretty convincing.

    Everyone does this to a certain extent – we tend to focus on facts that confirm our own perceptions.  For example, I think Barack Obama is good for the country, and I look at the $300 check from Blue Cross to confirm this for me.  If I worked for BCBS, I might look at that same check and figure out that the MLR regulations just forced me to send my raise to some guy with a rock based nick name.   This isn’t really problematic until you start MAKING UP facts to support things you ALREADY KNOW.  Like “Barack Obama would LIKE to not have a drone program because he’s a good person, but…” or “Barack Obama doesn’t say Creator when he quotes the Declaration because he’s secretly a godless commie.”

    Facing facts is hard, which is why probably conversations that include the phrase “Let’s face facts…” are uncomfortable.

  • Worthless Beast

    Just so people don’t go thinking all crazy is the same:

    I’m bipolar, but without the schitzophrenia. They are two different things (but sometimes are together, I guess? Well, I don’t have them together).  All I have is some issue in controlling my emotions.

    If my reality is warped in any way, well, when I’m undergoing depression, I feel like a worthless beast (hence my name) even when other people tell me I’m not. I don’t have that much of a problem when I’m feeling “up” (today, I’m okay for some odd reason).  

    If I have any delusions, it might be that I sometimes think my art really can change the world in some way – a positive lie that many people believe about their work and aren’t considere crazy for – or on the negative, my paranoia that Humans are Bastards and that I can never entirely trust other people (something that has been proven true for me by being betrayed by seemingly nice people and people who made me promises) – so I don’t really think that’s delusional either.

    If you do, that’s your business – maybe I am seeing life from another reality when I see lots of bastardliness in the world and want to change it.  Then again, I think most people on this blog see the world as made of bastard and want to change it.  

  • Worthless Beast

    Obama references “God” all the time – at least every time I’ve seen one of his speeches on television, waiting for the “Simpsons” or whatever to start. 

  • Mr. Heartland

    Fred Fred Fred.  As you must undoubtoubly know, Phyllis and the entire Schlafly family are more American than you, and are therefore endowed with the ability  to invent truth with their wills.   Keep up with the lip and you might as well forget about your social superiors deigning to allow you to dust their furniture for a living. 

  • Turcano

    Her son Andy has been rather… creative with some of his truth inventions.  Like the notion that God made the moai on Easter Island.  Seriously, I make it a point not to bust out the “r”-word in this webspace, but Assfly is making a severe test of that restriction.

  • Invisible Neutrino

    If you like, you might fairly say he labors under misapprehensions, the magnitude of which we cannot comprehend.

  • Tricksterson

    Why would they assume, even if he was a secret atheist that he would have a problem saying the word God or Creator?  Do they think that if he says “God” he will suddenly be engulfed in flames and his horns and spiked tail be subsequently revealed?

  • PJ Evans

    Do they think that if he says “God” he will suddenly be engulfed in
    flames and his horns and spiked tail be subsequently revealed?


  • Makarios

    Not to put too fine a point on it, anyone who gives a rat’s patoot about what Phyllis Schlafly has to say or doesn’t have to say is probably not going to vote for a black Democrat in any case.

  • phantomreader42

    Bearing false witness isn’t a sin to the religious right.  It’s their highest sacrament.