Phyllis Schlafly defends liars, by lying

Ed Brayton gives a rebuttal to what is perhaps the most egregiously dishonest critique of the Dover decision so far, by Phyllis Schlafly. John West of the Discovery Institute links to the Schlafly piece with approval.

Two examples which support the heading I've chosen: Schlafly writes of Judge Jones:

He smeared "fundamentalists," impugned the integrity of those who disagree with him by accusing them of lying and issued an unnecessary permanent injunction.

Judge Jones' accusations of lying were directed at two individuals who testified in the trial, Dover board members Alan Bonsell and William Buckingham, not at "fundamentalists" or "those who disagree with him." And he made the accusations because those two board members were lying, as I've previously described (about Bonsell here, about Buckingham here, and there's more in the decision here) and may end up facing perjury charges.

Schlafly further expands upon her misrepresentation of Jones' criticism of these two dishonest board members:

He lashed out at witnesses who expressed religious views different from his own, displaying a prejudice unworthy of our judiciary. He denigrated several officials because they "staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public."

Jones never mentions his religious views, and does not denigrate these board members for expressing religious views different from his own, but for lying. Here is the passage from Jones' decision that Schlafly is dishonestly commenting on:

It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy. (p. 137 of the decision)

Ed addresses more of Schlafly's dishonesty at Dispatches from the Culture Wars.