Phyllis Schlafly and George Neumayr. No Higher Power: Obama’s War on Religious Freedom. Regnery, 2012. See here to buy the book.
Phyllis Schlafly was a renowned conservative activist. George Neumayr is a contributing editor to the conservative magazine, The American Spectator. Hereafter, I will refer to the authors as “S & N.”
This book was released in 2012, which was at the end of Barack Obama’s first term as President. S & N essentially argue that Obama has undermined religious freedom and has used the federal government to attack Christianity. One way that S & N believe Obama has done this, of course, is through the contraceptive health care mandate: requiring companies to pay for health insurance that covers abortifacents. Such pressure threatens to put more and more Catholic hospitals out of business, if they choose to be non-compliant. Another way is by pressuring military chaplains to support same-sex marriage. According to S & N, Obama’s policy here gives lip service to religious freedom, but it prefers chaplains who support same-sex marriage, while marginalizing those who reject it on religious grounds. S & N also discuss Establishment Clause cases, which strip Christianity from American public life, all so that atheists will not be offended by a God they do not even believe in.
S & N appear to imply that Barack Obama has a personal animus to Christianity. Obama has consistently omitted references to the Creator when quoting the passage of the Declaration of Independence that mentions the Creator. His pastor, Jeremiah Wright, questions whether Obama is even a Christian. While Obama lauds his mother as a Christian, she actually was a disbeliever in Christianity. S & N also maintain that Obama has not been honest with the American people about his views. He claimed to oppose same-sex marriage before supporting it, when there is evidence that he supported it at the outset. S & N acknowledge that Obama is a good family man, but they believe that he manifests a bias against Christianity.
While Obama is negative towards Christianity, his Administration is more positive towards other religious expressions. Islam gets high praise from Obama and his underlings. And students in public schools sing praises to Obama, as part of official class activities.
S & N take the opportunity to criticize other aspects of Obama and his Administration. Saul Alinsky, the renowned radical community organizer who inspired Obama, gets a chapter. Former Weatherman radical Bill Ayers has a cameo. And the book contends that Obama appointees, nominees, and czars have radical personal and political views. One condones pederasty. Another argued in a case for prohibiting students from having a Christian club on a public school campus. Yet another endorsed abortion as a means of population control.
S & N are also critical of Christian supporters of Obama. They note that one makes almost a million dollars a year in her pro-Obama activities!
S & N see a conflict between two ideologies. The ideology that they oppose lets the State take care of people from cradle to grave and devalues the family as the place of instruction. S & N’s perspective, by contrast, values the family and faith while fearing that government will impinge on freedom, if given leeway to do so.
Here are some items:
A. S & N refer to a case that was like the later case of Kim Davis, the clerk who refused to provide same-sex marriage licenses on religious freedom grounds. This other clerk, however, was perfectly willing for her subordinate to provide the licenses, just so long as she did not have to do so.
B. Unlike some on the right, S & N are critical of those who support compulsory birth control for welfare recipients. They fear that Obama’s policies could set the stage for that, as a way for the government to save money.
C. It is interesting what causes Schlafly takes up. In more than one issue of her Phyllis Schlafly Report, for example, she weighs in on “patent reform.” As far as I know, not too many conservatives get fired up over that! In this book, she is somewhat critical of organ donorship, since doctors may be reluctant to save a person’s life if they can use that person’s organs to help someone else. A relative of mine has a similar attitude: he does not want hospitals to sacrifice his life to save a Rockefeller!
D. Overall, S & N in this book are rather negative towards Islam. They cite acts of Islamic extremism in responding to glowing accounts of Islam by Obama and his appointees. Surprisingly, S & N did not comment on how Obama’s stance towards Islam influenced his policies regarding the War on Terror. Despite their largely negative stance towards Islam, they manage to acknowledge nuance, every now and then. They are aware of the existence of moderate Muslims, for they state that Obama tends to favor radical Muslims abroad over moderate Muslims. They criticize Obama’s attempt to pressure the Kenyan government to support reproductive freedom, to the consternation of Muslim clerics.
E. S & N’s treatment of Alinsky was better than that by other right-wingers I have read, who attribute to Alinsky things that he never said. S & N quote Alinsky’s writings. I happen to be more sympathetic towards Alinsky than they are, since Alinsky seems to have been seeking to empower people who lacked a voice and political power. Why should corporations and governments be able to do anything they wish, without resistance from the people they impact? Even S & N advocate civil disobedience later in the book!
F. On some issues, I am broadly sympathetic towards S & N. I can understand why it is a bad idea for the government to attempt to compel people to violate their religious convictions: that is futile, since people will resist! Obama was arrogant to even try. In terms of S & N’s dire predictions about the outcome of such a policy, the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby decision and the succeeding Trump Administration probably undermined the policy significantly. I am also opposed to students being pressured to sing Obama’s praises. But is not indoctrination in public schools wrong, period, including the indoctrination that S & N may support: public school support for Christianity, or textbooks that have a conservative bent?
G. S & N are critical of setting up schools for LGBT students. What is wrong with this, though? They can be places where LGBT students can thrive academically and socially, without fear of harassment or violence. S & N are for private Catholic schools. Why are LGBT schools so wrong?
I checked this book out from the library. My review is honest.
Phyllis Schlafly was a renowned conservative activist. George Neumayr is a contributing editor to the conservative magazine, The American Spectator. Hereafter, I will refer to the authors as “S & N.”
This book was released in 2012, which was at the end of Barack Obama’s first term as President. S & N essentially argue that Obama has undermined religious freedom and has used the federal government to attack Christianity. One way that S & N believe Obama has done this, of course, is through the contraceptive health care mandate: requiring companies to pay for health insurance that covers abortifacents. Such pressure threatens to put more and more Catholic hospitals out of business, if they choose to be non-compliant. Another way is by pressuring military chaplains to support same-sex marriage. According to S & N, Obama’s policy here gives lip service to religious freedom, but it prefers chaplains who support same-sex marriage, while marginalizing those who reject it on religious grounds. S & N also discuss Establishment Clause cases, which strip Christianity from American public life, all so that atheists will not be offended by a God they do not even believe in.
S & N appear to imply that Barack Obama has a personal animus to Christianity. Obama has consistently omitted references to the Creator when quoting the passage of the Declaration of Independence that mentions the Creator. His pastor, Jeremiah Wright, questions whether Obama is even a Christian. While Obama lauds his mother as a Christian, she actually was a disbeliever in Christianity. S & N also maintain that Obama has not been honest with the American people about his views. He claimed to oppose same-sex marriage before supporting it, when there is evidence that he supported it at the outset. S & N acknowledge that Obama is a good family man, but they believe that he manifests a bias against Christianity.
While Obama is negative towards Christianity, his Administration is more positive towards other religious expressions. Islam gets high praise from Obama and his underlings. And students in public schools sing praises to Obama, as part of official class activities.
S & N take the opportunity to criticize other aspects of Obama and his Administration. Saul Alinsky, the renowned radical community organizer who inspired Obama, gets a chapter. Former Weatherman radical Bill Ayers has a cameo. And the book contends that Obama appointees, nominees, and czars have radical personal and political views. One condones pederasty. Another argued in a case for prohibiting students from having a Christian club on a public school campus. Yet another endorsed abortion as a means of population control.
S & N are also critical of Christian supporters of Obama. They note that one makes almost a million dollars a year in her pro-Obama activities!
S & N see a conflict between two ideologies. The ideology that they oppose lets the State take care of people from cradle to grave and devalues the family as the place of instruction. S & N’s perspective, by contrast, values the family and faith while fearing that government will impinge on freedom, if given leeway to do so.
Here are some items:
A. S & N refer to a case that was like the later case of Kim Davis, the clerk who refused to provide same-sex marriage licenses on religious freedom grounds. This other clerk, however, was perfectly willing for her subordinate to provide the licenses, just so long as she did not have to do so.
B. Unlike some on the right, S & N are critical of those who support compulsory birth control for welfare recipients. They fear that Obama’s policies could set the stage for that, as a way for the government to save money.
C. It is interesting what causes Schlafly takes up. In more than one issue of her Phyllis Schlafly Report, for example, she weighs in on “patent reform.” As far as I know, not too many conservatives get fired up over that! In this book, she is somewhat critical of organ donorship, since doctors may be reluctant to save a person’s life if they can use that person’s organs to help someone else. A relative of mine has a similar attitude: he does not want hospitals to sacrifice his life to save a Rockefeller!
D. Overall, S & N in this book are rather negative towards Islam. They cite acts of Islamic extremism in responding to glowing accounts of Islam by Obama and his appointees. Surprisingly, S & N did not comment on how Obama’s stance towards Islam influenced his policies regarding the War on Terror. Despite their largely negative stance towards Islam, they manage to acknowledge nuance, every now and then. They are aware of the existence of moderate Muslims, for they state that Obama tends to favor radical Muslims abroad over moderate Muslims. They criticize Obama’s attempt to pressure the Kenyan government to support reproductive freedom, to the consternation of Muslim clerics.
E. S & N’s treatment of Alinsky was better than that by other right-wingers I have read, who attribute to Alinsky things that he never said. S & N quote Alinsky’s writings. I happen to be more sympathetic towards Alinsky than they are, since Alinsky seems to have been seeking to empower people who lacked a voice and political power. Why should corporations and governments be able to do anything they wish, without resistance from the people they impact? Even S & N advocate civil disobedience later in the book!
F. On some issues, I am broadly sympathetic towards S & N. I can understand why it is a bad idea for the government to attempt to compel people to violate their religious convictions: that is futile, since people will resist! Obama was arrogant to even try. In terms of S & N’s dire predictions about the outcome of such a policy, the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby decision and the succeeding Trump Administration probably undermined the policy significantly. I am also opposed to students being pressured to sing Obama’s praises. But is not indoctrination in public schools wrong, period, including the indoctrination that S & N may support: public school support for Christianity, or textbooks that have a conservative bent?
G. S & N are critical of setting up schools for LGBT students. What is wrong with this, though? They can be places where LGBT students can thrive academically and socially, without fear of harassment or violence. S & N are for private Catholic schools. Why are LGBT schools so wrong?
I checked this book out from the library. My review is honest.