Follow by Email

Wednesday, 26 April 2017

Islam: And Why I Could Never Convert

Why Think on it?

So, I know it has been briefly mentioned before, but I wish to bring it up again more specifically. Lately, I have been pondering the hypothetical religious conversion that I think that I will one day likely undergo. This is because I consider myself a theist with some caveats. I am highly sympathetic to religion and feel much greater solidarity with the religious than irreligious people. I am a theist insofar as I believe in the God of Abraham, the Christian ideas of original sin and redemption through Jesus Christ, the oneness of God, and more. However, I am relatively theologically uninformed and this largely comes from being born into an atheist/anti-theist (at times) household. This has made any contact with the religious world infrequent and often frightening or confusing, and later frustrating at many points between childhood and adulthood. Regardless, I still seek to one day experience or enter into a meaningful relationship with God.

My question today, is given that I am in love with a woman who grew up in a Muslim household, and though she does not practice at the moment in any meaningful sense she does wish to embrace her religion more fully (and this is a religion I have criticized on many occasions), it caused me to reflect. The normal procedure in Islamic marriage is that men may marry people of the book without concern, but for women, out of nominal concern that their children grow up Muslims, man only marry a Muslim man. Thus, for an interfaith marriage to occur between a Muslim woman and a non-Muslim man it is customary for him to convert. Given that I love my girlfriend more than I can articulate and do not see potential for giving her up anytime soon, or at all I hope, then if she were to become obstinate about her faith, or family were to ask, it would be wise to know why I would not embrace that faith with her.  

Now, I do not want to tie any of this to the violence of the Muslim world or disparage Muslims. God knows I have met plenty of great Muslim people in my life. Therefore, out of deliberate choice, I will avoid talking about the terrorism infecting Europe and to a lesser extent the whole world. I won’t talk about demographic concerns or the lack of tolerance many Muslims espouse; nor will I bring up the abhorrent treatment of women in many Islamic societies more broadly. I think I can articulate other reasons why I would not convert that are personal and personal to my relationship.  

Necessarily Political

The first reason I give for my unwillingness to embrace the Islamic faith would be concerns over its necessarily political nature. What I mean by this is since Mohammed travelled to Medina he governed, and Islam as consequent needed a scripture that addressed government. This is a large part of the origin of Sharia and Fiqh (which is the interpretation of Islamic law based upon the scripture). Now, this is problematic not only because Islam has always been concerned with how to rule, but it also governs in the same body of laws basic concepts like how to approach prayer, and how to conduct one’s daily routine that does not exist in the same systematic form in other religions.

The Christian tradition and the scriptures are famous for emphasizing obedience to the secular law. Notably in, Rom 13: 1-7, where it is noted the authorities ought to be obeyed because of their appointment by God, and to Christians, one is to obey the law of the land in all but the most extreme circumstances. This teaching is found also in Peter 2:13-17 Figures like Martin Luther took this further. Where someone like Thomas Aquinas allowed for the expulsion of rulers who transgressed against the common good as understood by natural law (Aquinas, Baumgarth, & Regan On Law, Morality, and Politics 2002 185, 206). To Martin Luther the fall was so catastrophic that humanity could not be sure that poor political rule was not placed over them by God, and thus providentially; nor could a Christian rightly judge the intent of the ruler well enough to know whether he was evil of heart (Luther & Porter Luther: Selected Political Writings "Temporal Authority" 2003 51). This is a consequence of what historian Susan Schreiner called the fall of the mind. 

This same trend is visible in one of the foundational texts of Christianity by one of the greatest saints. St. Augustine. The City of God where much of the text concerns itself with the relationship between the consubstantial relationship between the earthly world and citizens of the holy city or the Civitas Dei. The citizens of the holy city reside with God and belong to him, but on account of humanity and the punishment of sin first, exist in the earthly world. They are pilgrims travelling through the world, and need not govern it. In fact, to Augustine government turned us away from God more often than not and led to sin. Instead, like Augustine, many Christian political theorists made room for two ends for human king one secular and one temporal. This can be seen in works like De Monarchia by Dante Alighieri, Defender of the Peace, by Marsilius of Padua, and Temporal Authority by Martin Luther among countless other examples. Christians are in direct transgression of biblical teaching when they attempt to legal mandate precepts of the faith. As Christ informs “my kingdom is not of this world (John 18:36).” Now, this interpretation may differ particularly regarding the pope, but the ideal is very different in either case. This is a result of Christ living and dying under the command of the Roman law. This gives a mandate to the law of the world because God himself lived and died under secular authority.


A second problem I have is that Islam is a one-way door. You do not generally get freedom of religion in Islam. This is because apostasy, and I understand interpretations differ, is generally considered a crime punishable by death. Even if it does not lead to death or criminal punishment it can far too often lead to shunning by communities and complete rejection by one’s society and family. This is something despicable and toxic in the religion and I cannot put a good spin or rationalization on it. Just to show that I am not making arbitrary or unfounded obligations it should be noted that 23 Muslim-majority countries maintain laws against apostasy in their criminal codes,  and many more unofficial killings particularly under the guise of honour killings occur routinely.

Finally, there is no concept of original sin in Islam in the way in which Christians think about it. Keep in mind I am not unaware that original sin is itself disputed in the Christian doctrine and not absolutely accepted, especially in the early church, and some associate it with the pernicious influence of St. Augustine of Hippo. My girlfriend and I have talked about as much. She notes that Adam repented and prayed hard and was forgiven and his original sin did not pass on through the generations. In Christianity, this scarring of our nature is permanent and constant. St. Augustine notes as much in Book I of his Confessions when he speaks of his infant greed and envy. Augustine taught that our will was broken and weak, but extant and could be strengthened by God; I would go further: I believe that the only capacity to truly be good comes from Gods irruption of grace and salvation through Christ there is in no way that Islam can rectify that, and in its own way it is rather pelagian thinking in that we can feel enough contrition to be absolved and forgiven on our own. This is a position that I reject entirely.


Well, I don’t really have that much more to say in brief blog post. But these are the essential reasons why I view conversion to Islam is impossible, and unwise. These are theological positions which, given my feeling of affinity toward Christian theology, cannot embrace. I hope even though I was rather obscure and superficial someone finds this post interesting and finds something to think about. 

Tuesday, 25 April 2017

Left and Right Discuss Politics #2 Drug Legalization and HealthCare

In this video, my good Friend Zach and I discuss the potential hazards of drug legalization, what conservatives ought to do, and how this will affect Canada in the future. We also briefly discuss the fentanyl crisis and the burden on healthcare and some ways to deal with those associated problems from within and outside the healthcare system. 

Finally, I briefly talk about the horrible book Robert Greene's Mastery, which I thought was a horrible disappointment. 

Monday, 10 April 2017

Left and Right Discuss Politics #1

My talk with friend Zach on the state of the world. We discuss Islamic theology, the populist movements in Europe and North America, outrage culture, the traditional family and more! I hope to do many more videos with Zach. We had an especially productive and interesting conversation about Islamic theology and its relationship to terrorism.

Zach is an Edmonton musician and close friend you can find his band at support them and their new album they are amazing. I hope he will be a collaborative partner for the foreseeable future. It's nice to reach concord despite problematic differences in ideology and understanding, however, productive dialogue with others in the political spectrum is a key element in the maintenance of a free society. 

Sunday, 9 April 2017

Coffee With Conservative #4 Trump, Syria, Women Hate, Graduate School

I am not going to give a long disclaimer for this video.  I mostly discuss the state of conservative parties in Alberta and at the federal level.  Secondly, I spend some time talking about the Syria strike and Donald Trump. Finally, a  personal chat about whether to attend grad school. Hope you enjoy. 

My Personal Relationship With the Syrian Conflict and Other Thoughts

 Thoughts on Syria

Since day one I have had mixed opinions about President Trump. Part of me hailed the death blow for the progressive narrative, and the notion that history is a linear and ever liberalizing process, the other half of me was more confused than angry. I wasn't sure if the uncouth and demagogic nationalist that I saw on the television was as daft as he was inarticulate, but if that was the case I worried. 

Disclaimer aside,  POTUS Trump fired 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles at  Shayrat air base in western Syria April 7, 2017. This was on the assumption that the Assad regime had again used chemical weapons to attack Khan Sheikhoun north of Homs. Though the attacks origin is disputed, some saying the rebels again like the gassing in Ghouta ( a suburb of Damascus) had chemical weapons in deployed when mishandled or damaged by explosives;, the fact is we don't know.  Either way these weapons, by the regime or the opposition were deployed, and the United States has made a shockingly antagonistic move in the eastern Mediterranean.

Cut Out the Perfidious and Immoral Allies

 After this attack it seems as though the anti-Assad rhetoric is in full swing, again, I am not sure this is wise nor useful. Nations of the west have aligned themselves with horrible regimes now and in the past. Everyone knows the United States, has been in the past and strange bedfellows with the disturbing Saudi Regime, the Duvaliers in Haiti, or Hussien's Iraq. 

Yet, when it comes to foreign dictators they seem free to condemn those whom do not ally themselves with the United States or receive support from the bugbear that is the Russian Federation; one of the only countries that does not toe the good globalist line.  

My point is it seems awful conspicuous and disgusting to assault the regime in Syria the one bulwark against the disgusting Al-Nusra Front and Islamic State, simply because they are the flavour of the week in terms of being a head of state that is not appreciated by the sitting president.

Cut your support from the despicable Arab dictatorships, all of them, POTUS Trump and then we will talk about throwing missiles in the direction of whom ever you want.


Furthermore, this act of aggression by the United States hit a little closer to home than usual. My girlfriend who I love very very deeply is a Canadian raised in Syria/Lebanon, (she spent most her life moving between the two) much of her family including her father live in the area around Damascus, and despite the fact that I don't particularly like her father, knowing that her family is in danger, never mind caught in the middle of a potential super-power entanglement, makes me deeply uncomfortable. 

Its more trying when she hasn't seen the news and you inform her in a casual phone call that the United States just fired missiles on the place you grew up. Once she knew it wasn't on a population centre there was some relief however.

Happy Syrians

I wouldn't say I was initially surprised although, I may have been slightly confused when I saw on twitter a number of Syrians in Syria and in Europe about their gratitude for the missile strike. I hesitate to call them naive, but I do think they underestimate the potential complications of such an incident. particularly the fact that opposition forces might find themselves emboldened by such a move. 

Russian Tensions

Russia, is justifiably outraged at the President Trump's conduct. Its a shame that bilateral moves to form a peace agreement in Syria are likely to stall, but otherwise I am not sure I see how this could be horribly consequential for the United States. Russia simply does not have the international clout or the military to truly threaten the United States or stop it from acting unilaterally. I think they may have alienated a country that could have been a strong ally in the future, if a smart president had merely worked to reconcile the two nations and forgive the childish disputes between the EU and Russia instead recognizing its sphere of influence in the east, but now that option seems like a thing of the past. The United States should be no means expect to have free reign in the region however, as Russia leases the critical Tartus naval base in Syria. It is one of Russia's only warm water ports, and it sits beyond the Bosporus and Crimea, and is therefore critical. Russia will not abandon the region no matter what the future holds for the Assad regime. 

Finally, I wonder if this is really in any way effective. Sure the Tomahawk strike was intimidating and shocking to western media. But it didn't cause significant damage to Syria's capacity to wage war. Instead, it seems like such a move will only push Assad to continue his killing with conventional weaponry, which if you are a civilian is inconsequential shrapnel or gas you are just as dead. The Shayrat Airbase is already running again, surprise, and Donald Trump is being questioned by his base while recieveing support from the hawk lobby in the Congress. It is a strange time. Finally, and President Trump should know this, unless he has miraculously detailed intellegence which tells him something no one else knows, is that if Syria falls, the United States tries to change the regime or cripples it, or anything else truly debilitating happens to the Assad regime then the extremists likely the Islamic State will take over. Is that the future we want even for those of us who do not live in Syria?

Friday, 7 April 2017

Essay: The Failure of the 1972 Equal RIghts Amendment

Hi, everyone, this is an essay I composed for a survey on American History. It's about the success of Phyllis Schlafly, and the new right alliance over the odious and disturbing Equal Rights Amendment. It is written from a moderate position and little rhetoric given its academic aims, however, as you likely know, I have a strong stance on these issues. I will concede though that an ERA amendment might actually have/ be a good thing for western countries, because of the marriage laws as they stand (eg) Post Canada Divorce Act's 1986 revision), I think a legal order that caters to the needs of women needs to be built on real marriage not the nonsense of no-fault divorce; if it is constructed on such a foundation then women have no obligations to man and family. Regardless, enjoy. 

On March 22, 1972, the United States Congress passed the Equal Rights Amendment.[1] This began the ratification process; the ratification process itself ended in failure on June 30, 1982, despite it coming within fifteen states of success.[2] Furthermore, the amendment had overwhelming popular support, and it continued to have popular support in the years up to the failure of the amendment.[3] From this observation, several important questions emerge about how a movement, the success of which was taken as a given, managed to fail even after an extension of the ratification period by thirty-nine months in 1978.[4] Why and how did a concentrated defensive movement by opponents of the ERA obstruct the amendment and stop it from reaching ratification?
With this question in mind, a historical analysis of the campaign leads to the conclusion that the amendment, from its outset, once a coherent oppositional force emerged, was doomed to failure.  By carefully investigating the limits of the Pro-ERA campaign and its lack of both historical awareness and organizational capability in contrast to the anti-ERA campaign’s strengths in both organization and outreach relative to the limits and nature of the constitutional amendment process of the United States, the failure of the amendment takes on greater clarity.
The 1960’s and the 1970’s, were a time of unprecedented change in American social life.[5] This change impacted women in new and novel ways. The contraceptive pill, the legalization of abortion nationally in Roe V. Wade, and the publication of Betty Friedan’s the Feminine Mystique in 1963 (you can read chapter 2: Here to get a sense of the book) were all emblematic of the shifting social and gender relations in the United States.[6] Evidence for these changes is observable in the movement of American women, particularly educated women as opposed to the traditionally poor, minority, immigrant, and single women into the workforce in the period. By 1970, 3.1 million or 42% of American women over 16 were working, most were part of this new demographic compared to a relatively static percentage of 25% of women over 14 in the period between 1910 and 1940.[7] This shift gave rise to a reinvigorated feminist movement concentrated in educated and middle-class women;[8] as a result, women as a whole entered a debate about what it meant to be a woman in American society.
The debate between women centered on what was best for women, and whether women as whole were different by nature from men.[9] On these fault lines, women attempted to define what was in their collective best interest. If women did have a unique role in society, due to their nature and demeanor, then they ought not to pursue political or social goals on the same terms as men. However, if women were equal as individuals and in their nature then it meant full legal equality seemed to be the best option for women.[10] Evidence for this divide is found in the fact that campaigners both for and against the ERA agitated on behalf of different views about how best to realize the well-being of women, and women composed the principle activists on both sides of ratification debate.[11]       
From these initial changes in the social life of America, the newly coalescing feminist movement sought to achieve some form of substantial legal equality with men. This process began with the pursuit of piecemeal reforms throughout the states, but the initiators of this process and the organizations they formed, including NOW (National Organization for Women) in 1966 and ERAmerica later in 1976,[12] supported the amendment on the grounds that  proposing and passing legislation on an ad hoc basis in each individual state was insufficient for realizing their goals in a timely manner.[13] Given this frustration, these women proposed the Equal Rights Amendment of 1972 which stated ‘equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.’[14] This amendment passed quickly in congress with votes of 354 to 24 in the House of Representatives and 84 to 8 in the Senate; given the rapid legal changes proceeding in the country these activists felt confident in the success of the ratification process.[15] Opponents like North Carolina Senator Sam Ervin protested that the amendment “would abolish gender distinctions in military service, expose women to the draft, . . . force them into combat. . . ."rob" women of child support, alimony, and widow's benefits, and would require the use of mixed-gender prisons and "unisex toilets.’ But they were considered insignificant and quickly discredited.[16] Indeed activists felt so successful they did not assign resources for campaigns in the individual states.[17] This strategy seemed gratuitous as the ratification process raced along with 20 states ratifying in the three months and an additional ten within a year.[18]
Given these successes and the information gathered from national polls suggesting strong support for the amendment,[19] proponents of the amendment did not hesitate to make arguments in favour of legal equality in the public forum even on controversial issues such as women in the draft, access to abortion, homosexual marriage, and divorce settlements assuming women had come together on these issues.[20] However, state by state polling, especially in contentious jurisdictions like Illinois, told a different story. There 40% of women and 58% of men favoured the amendment in 1976. In non-ratifying states, the degree of support remained weak and quickly declined with women’s support falling to under 40% in 1978. [21] Many women opposed these reforms and there was confusion about the aims and goals of the feminist movement. When women and men were polled on support for the amendment in 1978 they found that 23 percent of the men and 26 percent of the women did not have an opinion.[22] Although resistance took time to coalesce, the public perception of the amendment was already uncertain.
In part, these complications and the failure to ratify the amendment in a timely matter stemmed from divisions within the leadership of the proponents. NOW and ERAmerica had different plans for achieving their goals, with traditional lobbying being the focus of ERAmerica, and NOW focusing on protest and civic agitation following the model of the civil rights activists to secure their goals.[23] In addition to the two major national organizations, radical women’s groups such as Redstockings, WITCH (Women’s International Terrorist Conspiracy from Hell), and New York Radical Women emerged, and this led to swift condemnation from Betty Friedan and NOW.[24] NOW itself received criticism for undermining traditional lobbying efforts in the states.[25] The Democratic Party itself further contributed to the disunity among proponents; the party experienced upheavals during the period between ‘New Democrats’ and the old Democrats.[26] For example, when Eugenia Chapman attempted to secure Democratic support from Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, political expediency trumped ideology as men like Daley worked to secure the re-election of favoured candidates in the face of challenges from newcomers, even if this happened at the expense of the ERA and supporters like Chapman.[27]
These harms could have potentially been limited if the proponents of the amendment provided positive arguments that affirmed the benefits women would receive.[28] Instead, they remained rather vague or overly optimistic about the outcomes of the amendment and often failed to articulate a case that seemed suitable to people in all demographics. To Historian Bruce Schulman, the 1977 National Women’s Conference in Houston exposed just how divorced from popular opinion the women’s movement had become.[29] High achieving women assembled for self-exaltation of future successes and goals producing the pamphlet What Women Want, which touched on all areas of life, and confirmed suspicions that the feminist mission involved a complete restructuring of the social and familial order; meanwhile the ERA had stalled.[30]
Given the defeat of Sam Ervin in the Senate, it seemed overwhelmingly ironic that Ervin would reach out to Illinois lawyer, Republican party activist, campaign organizer, and successful author and publisher Phyllis Schlafly.[31] Schlafly’s movement gave a voice to what political scientists Virginia Gray and Pamela Conover called, a new bourgeoise.  This new bourgeoise was composed of middle-class men and women who had recently ascended from the working-class and found themselves exposed to the social transformation of the 1960’s and 1970’s.[32] Schlafly’s STOP-ERA campaign not only organized these people, but served as the foundation for a new political movement that would title itself the New Right, and it emerged out of the alliance she fostered of secular, religious, and pro-family conservatives.[33] To feminist proponents of the amendment, Schlafly was a conundrum, not only because of her consummate political abilities but because she lived a traditional life and believed in traditional social roles in the home while also maintaining a high profile liberated career in law and politics.[34] Schlafly’s example seems to potentially show just how difficult it was for proponents to support the contention that traditional family roles were incompatible with the modern woman.
One significant advantage emerged in the STOP-ERA campaign; Schlafly and her supporters were better able to secure support for their cause because they were fighting a single-issue campaign. They fought against one motion and could counter it with diverse, and occasionally hyperbolic arguments about consequences, which to opponents of the amendment at least, seemed logically consistent with the wording of the legislation.[35] Schlafly and her supporters played off topics as diverse as the idea that the states would be forced to fund and endorse abortion, that states rights would be violated, that women would lose their traditional support in divorce, that women would become subject to the draft, and that private property itself was under attack.[36] Compared to the failure of the proponents of the amendment to argue effectively for the necessity of an amendment, the opponents’ rhetoric looked fierce and moved people by a much more compelling force: fear. This can be seen most notably in the plunging support for the amendment with a 30% decline between 1976 to 1980 with less than three-fifths of women supporting the motion in non-ratified states after the initiation of the STOP-ERA campaign.[37] The movement to halt the ERA looked more effective once a handful of states expressed interest in rescinding their support after initial votes for the amendment.[38]
Given the passion Schlafly and her STOP-ERA supporters had, it is unsurprising that they used novel means to organize and efficiently capitalized upon the plurality of structures available to them to reach out to people at the grassroots level while also securing the legislative votes necessary to prevent the passage of the amendment. This state by state campaign focused predominately on lobbying as well as securing the election of state legislators who supported the cause of the Schlafly alliance. They did this by capitalizing on the political action committees (PACS), which given recent changes to campaign funding legislation became an extremely effective means to gather funding in support of candidates.[39]
Meanwhile, they waged a ground campaign, going door to door. and working by mail order,[40] which became crucial given that media support for the STOP-ERA cause was marginal outside of conservative journal’s like the Phyllis Schlafly Report and the National Review.[41] This did not mean that the campaign of ERA opponents received no coverage, however, as news media by 1973 mentioned Schlafly in the majority of ERA reports and articles on the debate. Likewise, ERA opponents still received substantial coverage in women’s publications.[42] Meanwhile, the Viguerie Company, an engine of the conservative movement, demonstrated the power of direct mail when it managed to send over four million letters to conservatives and inundate one official with over 720, 000 letters.[43] In this way, Schlafly proved successful in reaching many middle-class homemakers and women concerned about the amendment. She did this in part by working with Church’s and other institutions as well ad hoc groups and national groups at the local level such as National Council of Catholic Women, Women Who Want to be Women, and the Family Preservation League, while leading the national campaign in a strictly hierarchical fashion.[44] In addition, through Christian associations such as Jerry Falwell’s Moral Majority, James Robinson’s Religious Roundtable, and Pat Robertson’s Christian voice, they could reach a subscriber base of over 560, 000 when coupled with the reach of the Schlafly Report (initial) 3000 subscribers and National Review they were able to contact a broad and motivated base.[45] This tied into another key advantage, the opponents of the amendment consistently demonstrated greater political knowledge on average and a greater readiness to vote in state and local campaigns.[46]
To understand the failure of the proponents of the Equal Rights Amendment one final observation is necessary; the difficulties of the proponents have been contrasted with the efficacious organizational methods of the New Right opponents of the amendment and this contrast exposes necessary consequences. Though the bottom up campaign waged by the Schlafly STOP-ERA movement was fierce and effective, there can be no doubt that it only showed itself as truly effective in the context of the ratification process itself. A constitutional amendment in the United States is a necessarily trying thing, as historian Elizabeth Perry makes clear. She cites the times to ratification for various amendments into the constitution studied by Mary Berry;[47] the amendments concerning prohibition, Women’s Suffrage, and slavery took 72, 108, and 57 years to pass successfully.[48] Meanwhile, one need only look at the arduous history of the 1923 Equal Rights Amendment proposed by Alice Paul to see that when constitutional challenges entered the public forum opposition would always be fierce and ratification difficult.[49]  Furthermore, states with high Mormon populations in the west Nevada, Arizona, and Utah, as well as the Democratic bastion composed of the former confederate states, had proved virtually impenetrable to prior amendments, and in the example of the 14th amendment success only came with circuitous methods.[50]
These issues would have been less burdensome if there had been plans for a national campaign in support of the ERA working on a state level, or if proponents had built up stable bases of support in individual states before asserting their cause at the national level,[51] but this was not the case. Instead, feminists and proponents of the amendment lobbied congress for the passage of an amendment without fully convincing the public of its necessity, and in being too optimistic about the prospects failed to recognize the gradual social shift taking place in reaction to the changes of the prior decade.[52] They failed to notice trends like the shift from moderate Methodist, Presbyterian, and Episcopalian Churches to new evangelic and fundamentalist Churches that saw explosions in their congregations over the same period.[53] Nor did they effectively rectify themselves to the historical difficulties intentionally placed in the amendment process, and their opponents who in only needing to secure 13 states against, had the strategic advantage from the outset.[54] The rise of the New Right and the conservative resurgence of the 1980’s under the leadership of Ronald Regan revealed the degree that pro-ERA activists misjudged the public mood and the complexities of ratification as a whole.[55] 

[1] David E Kyvig, "Historical Misunderstandings and the Defeat of the Equal Rights Amendment," The Public Historian 18, no. 1 (Winter, 1996): 45.
[2] Ibid., 45-46.
[3] Donald T Critchlow and Cynthia L. Stachecki, "The Equal Rights Amendment Reconsidered: Politics, Policy, and Social Mobilization in a Democracy," Journal of Policy History 20, no. 01 (January 2008): 162-163; Pamela J. Conover and Virginia Gray, Feminism and the New Right: Conflict over the American Family (New York: Praeger, 1983), 8.
[4] Kyvig, “Defeat of the Equal Rights Amendment,” 45.
[5] Philip Jenkins, A History of the United States, 3rd ed. (New York, N.Y: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007), 285; Bruce J. Schulman, The Seventies: the Great Shift in American Culture, Society, and Politics (Cambridge, MA: Da Capo Press, 2002) 11-12, 162-163; Conover and Gray, Feminism and the New Right, 3.
[6] Jenkins, A History of the United States, 284; Maldwyn A. Jones, The Limits of Liberty: American History, 1607-1980 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1983), 585.
[7] Jones, The Limits of Liberty, 284.
[8] Schulman, The Seventies, 162-163.
[9] Kyvig, “Defeat of the Equal Rights Amendment,” 52; Laura R. Woliver, "The Equal Rights Amendment & the Limits of Liberal Legal Reform," Polity 21, no. 1 (1988): 185; Elisabeth I. Perry, "Scholars Confront the ERA," Canadian Review of American Studies 18, no. 3 (October 1987): 395; Conover and Gray, Feminism and the New Right, 10.
[10] Conover and Gray, Feminism and the New Right, 10.
[11] Ibid., 9.
[12] Critchlow and Stachecki, "The Equal Rights Amendment Reconsidered,” 170; Jones, The Limits of Liberty, 585.
[13] Jones, The Limits of Liberty, 585-586
[14] Kyvig, “Defeat of the Equal Rights Amendment,” 45.
[15] Kyvig, “Defeat of the Equal Rights Amendment,” 51; Mary F. Berry, Why Era Failed: Politics, Women's Rights and the Amending Process of the Constitution (Bloomington, I.N: Indiana University Press, 1988), 63-64. It should be noted that Berry’s text reads passage in the house as 354/23 as opposed to 354/24. I was unable to identify the reason, or access the microforms of the congressional record, to identify the error. However, NOW lists the vote in the house as 354/24 "Chronology of the Equal Rights Amendment, 1923-1996,", 2017, accessed March 18, 1017,
[16] Kyvig, “Defeat of the Equal Rights Amendment,” 51.
[17] Berry, Why Era Failed, 65.
[18] Kyvig, “Defeat of the Equal Rights Amendment,” 45.
[19] Critchlow and Stachecki, "The Equal Rights Amendment Reconsidered,” 162-163; Conover and Gray, Feminism and the New Right, 8.
[20] Perry, "Scholars Confront the ERA,” 397; Matilda Butler and William Paisley, "Equal Rights Coverage in Magazines, Summer 1976," Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 55, no. 1 (Spring, 1978): 158; Critchlow and Stachecki, "The Equal Rights Amendment Reconsidered,” 169.
[21] Critchlow and Stachecki, "The Equal Rights Amendment Reconsidered,” 158, 163.
[22] Ibid., 163.
[23] Critchlow and Stachecki, "The Equal Rights Amendment Reconsidered,” 159; Schulman, The Seventies, 164.
[24] Schulman, The Seventies, 164-165
[25] Critchlow and Stachecki, "The Equal Rights Amendment Reconsidered,” 170.
[26] Ibid., 162.
[27] Ibid., 162.
[28] Berry, Why Era Failed, 68; Perry, "Scholars Confront the ERA,” 395, 297.
[29] Schulman, The Seventies, 186.
[30] Schulman, The Seventies, 186-187.
[31] Kyvig, “Defeat of the Equal Rights Amendment,” 51; Critchlow and Stachecki, "The Equal Rights Amendment Reconsidered,” 165.
[32] Conover and Gray, Feminism and the New Right, 68-70
[33] Conover and Gray, Feminism and the New Right, 77; Schulman 187-188, 193, 201-202; Critchlow and Stachecki, "The Equal Rights Amendment Reconsidered,” 165.
[34] Schulman, The Seventies, 169.
[35] Critchlow and Stachecki, "The Equal Rights Amendment Reconsidered,” 166.
[36] Phyllis Schlafly, "How ERA Would Change Federal Laws," Phyllis Schlafly Report, (November 1981 Vol 15. No 4. November 1981) Accessed March 18, 2017,
[37] Critchlow and Stachecki, "The Equal Rights Amendment Reconsidered,” 163.
[38] Kyvig, “Defeat of the Equal Rights Amendment,” 58.
[39] Conover and Gray, Feminism and the New Right, 91-92.
[40] Butler and Paisely, "Equal Rights Coverage in Magazines,” 158-159; Conover and Gray, Feminism and the New Right, 91.
[41] Critchlow and Stachecki, "The Equal Rights Amendment Reconsidered,” 165-166; Schulman, The Seventies, 195.
[42] Butler and Paisely, "Equal Rights Coverage in Magazines,” 159; Conover and Gray, Feminism and the New Right, 75.
[43] Schulman, The Seventies, 198.
[44] Critchlow and Stachecki, "The Equal Rights Amendment Reconsidered,” 165-166, 167; Perry, "Scholars Confront the ERA,” 398.
[45] Conover and Gray, Feminism and the New Right, 76.
[46] Critchlow and Stachecki, "The Equal Rights Amendment Reconsidered,” 163-164.
[47] Berry, Why Era Failed, 2-3, 56; Perry, "Scholars Confront the ERA,” 396.
[48] Perry, "Scholars Confront the ERA,” 396.
[49] Kyvig, “Defeat of the Equal Rights Amendment,” 49.
[50] Berry, Why Era Failed, 9; Critchlow and Stachecki, "The Equal Rights Amendment Reconsidered,” 160; Schulman, The Seventies, 170.
[51] Berry, Why Era Failed, 64.
[52] Kyvig, “Defeat of the Equal Rights Amendment,” 52, 62; Perry, "Scholars Confront the ERA,” 394, 397.
[53] Jenkins, A History of the United States, 288-289.
[54] Woliver, "The Equal Rights Amendment & the Limits of Liberal Legal Reform,” 194.
[55] Schulman, The Seventies, 187-188; Jenkins, A History of the United States, 288-289.