Bullies

by Ben Shapiro

  Americans are right to worry about the loss of a clean and healthy environment. Who wouldn’t truly worry if the earth were about to turn into a giant smokestack spewing garbage into the air, transforming our climate into Dante’s inferno?

  But it isn’t. And if it is, Americans deserve to make that judgment themselves, not to be bullied into it by a bunch of thugs slated to make money off their alarmism. In the years that Al Gore has been hawking his green energy Brooklyn Bridges, including “carbon credits”—fictional measures of carbon emissions that can be bought and sold to avoid regulation—Gore positioned himself to make hundreds of millions of dollars. Which means that for this Elmer Gantry of environmentalism, global warming is a Very Convenient Untruth.55

  Bullying is a profitable business for the environmentalists. Their entire game is shouting fire in a crowded theater—or rather, burning baby in a crowded theater. And they stifle the truth to prevent people from fighting back.

  7.

  SECULAR BULLIES

  On June 28, 2012, Michelle Obama, The Most Beautiful Woman In The World™, spoke at the African Methodist Episcopal Church’s General Conference. There, in her own charming style, she urged church leaders to get politically active. Not Jeremiah Wright active, mind you, but active enough to get out the vote for Barack Hussein Obama, who made America a country Michelle could be proud of.

  “To anyone who says that church is no place to talk about these issues,” said Michelle, “you tell them there is no place better—no place better. Because ultimately, these are not just political issues—they are moral issues. They’re issues that have to do with human dignity and human potential, and the future we want for our kids and grandkids.”1 The crowd went wild, reacting almost as if they’d heard pastor Jeremiah Wright term the United States the “US of KKKA.”

  Michelle was exactly right. Politics and religion are two sides of the same coin; both are expressions of our ethics. Trying to remove politics from religion and religion from politics is a fruitless task, and one our founding fathers would have abhorred. The Constitution designed the separation of church and state to prevent people from imposing their particular religions on others, not to stop people from allowing their religious beliefs to influence their views on public policy.

  But, of course, Michelle wasn’t serious. She meant to say that liberal churchgoers should talk until their faces turn blue. Conservative churchgoers, however, are religious bigots, and should shut their pieholes until Jesus makes his big comeback in The Passion II: He Won’t Be Crossed Again.

  How do we know that? Because Michelle’s husband said so back in 2006, in his single most comprehensive speech about religion. There, he said that progressives should hijack religious imagery and language to argue for their positions. But he also argued that the religiously motivated had to “translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. . . . I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God’s will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.”

  Now, this all sounds very reasonable. But it is a fundamental denial of the role of religion in people’s lives when you argue that they have to use the language of secularism to justify the laws for which they vote.

  Think of religion, especially Judeo-Christian religion, as a language—Italian, perhaps.

  And think of secularism as its own language—German.

  What Obama is saying is that everyone should speak German, even if their natural language is Italian. Actually, they shouldn’t even be allowed to have a ballot in Italian. They should speak German, act German, and vote German. And then Obama has the temerity to tell us that he’s pro-Italian.

  Why should religious people have to justify their votes or policies on secular grounds? So long as the policies themselves are not establishing a particular religion, they shouldn’t. If a Mormon votes for Proposition 8 because scripture tells him that he ought to, he doesn’t owe an explanation to anybody. The fact that Proposition 8 doesn’t force anybody to join the Tabernacle Choir is a good indicator that it’s not establishing religion. You don’t have to be a Mormon to vote for Proposition 8. And if a gay person wants to know why you voted for the proposition, you don’t have to explain why in terms of social science data.

  But Obama doesn’t think this is true. He believes people should vote only for the reasons he thinks are valid. He says so himself in the speech. He says that he, Barack Obama, should be able to choose for everyone which biblical principles are most important—namely, those that are apolitical—and which can simply be discarded. A belief in “Christ’s divinity,” said Obama back in 2006, is “central to Christian faith,” but the practical values for which Christ stood . . . well, not so much. Which is why, Obama explained, “some of those opposed to gay marriage nevertheless are opposed to a Constitutional amendment to ban it. Religious leadership need not accept such wisdom in counseling their flocks, but they should recognize this wisdom in their politics.”

  Obama gets even clearer. He’s willing to accept people mentioning God in the Pledge of Allegiance. But he’s not okay with people invoking God when they talk about their most cherished beliefs. That’s because people argue about biblical interpretation, says Obama. Obama actually paraphrased a famous 2000 email in which he supposedly pointed out biblical inconsistencies: “And even if we did have only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools? Would we go with James Dobson’s, or Al Sharpton’s? Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is ok and that eating shellfish is abomination? How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount—a passage that is so radical that it’s doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application? So before we get carried away, let’s read our bibles. Folks haven’t been reading their bibles.”2

  To put it mildly, Obama knows nothing about religion. To put it less mildly, this is moronic.

  First, this is scripturally incorrect—religious Jews still don’t eat shellfish, the Talmud clearly says that the injunction about the rebellious child has never been invoked, and Obama’s interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount is more in line with Karl Marx than with Jesus. Actually, this is just cribbing from a popular 2000 email that purports to debunk the Bible by saying some of it has been reinterpreted. The email’s stupid, too.

  Second, and more importantly, even if there is a dispute about religious interpretation, why should that invalidate religion as a means of deciding voter values? People disagree about secular rationales for policy all the time—well, until Obama’s glowing visage strikes their brain, and they’re rendered dumb by the brilliance of his countenance.

  Here’s the bottom line. Obama seems to believe that if we must all start without a set of values—we must start with a secular tabula rasa. Judeo-Christian believers think that we should begin with a common set of biblical values—and then we can discuss whether those beliefs are subject to new interpretation.

  This is an absolutely stark difference—especially because those of the Judeo-Christian worldview generally don’t begrudge others when it comes to their voting justification. Only secularists think that religious people have no right to discuss their politics.

  Take, for example, Proposition 8 again. Now take a look at the judicial ruling by Judge Vaughn Walker, the federal judge who decided that Proposition 8 violated the federal constitution. To understand just how insane this is, you have to recognize that according to Walker, the Constitution of the United States, ratified in 1789, was meant to stop states from exclusively recognizing male-female marriages. In 1789, Thomas Jefferson was recommending castration for homosexuals. That
was actually the liberal position—the Virginia legislature prescribed death. So it’s fairly safe to say that the founders would not have been fans of Glee.

  Nonetheless, Walker said that the Constitution barred traditional marriage amendments. Why? Well, said Walker, there was no rational basis for such legislation. Proposition 8, wrote Walker, was “premised on the belief that same-sex couples simply are not as good as opposite-sex couples.” This, of course, is true in certain respects. For example, same-sex couples are not as good at creating children, for obvious biological reasons—no matter what beautiful babies Anderson Cooper and the straight man Tom Cruise would have, they’ll have some obstacles getting there. Same-sex couples are not as good at providing a stable male-female home for a child, by definition. But Walker said that such a belief simply had no basis in rationality whatsoever. Why? Simply because Walker disagreed with it—and in particular, disagreed with religious people.

  Actually, Walker went full-scale fan mail crazy, with CAPSLOCK glued down to the keyboard. Here’s what he wrote—yes, including the capitalization: “A PRIVATE MORAL VIEW THAT SAME-SEX COUPLES ARE INFERIOR TO OPPOSITE-SEX COUPLES IS NOT A PROPER BASIS FOR LEGISLATION.” Just to ensure we got the point, Walker went after religious people directly: “The evidence shows conclusively that moral and religious views form the only basis for a belief that same-sex couples are different from opposite-sex couples. . . . [R]eligious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians.”

  This is complete and utter antireligious bullying. There are excellent reasons why same-sex marriage should not be enshrined in state law. Traditional marriage is built around the needs of children. Children need a mother and a father. Men and women are inherently different; they bring different qualities to the raising of children. The biological parents of a child, especially, bring unique qualities to the raising of their own children. Just because Vaughn Walker disagrees with those reasons, and just because many of the people who happen to agree with those reasons are religious, does not mean that such legislation should be ruled off-limits by a judge duty-bound to implement the Constitution.

  But Walker is a secularist bully. So is Obama.

  The left’s view of religion requires a jihad on it in the public square. If you sense somebody voting because of their religious worldview, smack them in the face—they’re betraying the basic liberal notion that only secularism matters. If you think a Christian is judging you, tell that Christian to stop being un-American. Religion is fine, so long as it doesn’t impact your vote on gay marriage, abortion, contraception, welfare, food stamps, universal health care, or foreign policy.

  OBAMA’S WAR ON RELIGION

  President Obama’s secular bullying serves a dual purpose for him. First, it provides him the personal satisfaction of supplanting God with himself. Second, it gives him a convenient enemy to target in order to garner the female vote.

  See, President Obama knows that women have never had it better in this country. And he knows that Republicans are not only fine with women working, they’re making a heavy play for women by running charismatic female politicians like Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, Kristi Noem, and dozens more. As it turns out, married women are especially apt to vote Republican, since the Republican Party is heavy on traditional family values. And even among women, sentiment surrounding abortion is incredibly mixed—and thanks to Roe v. Wade, the abortion issue is off the table for the most part anyway.

  But somehow, Obama needed to grab a higher percentage of the female vote. And if the Republicans weren’t going to paint themselves into a corner, Obama would have to fence them in another way: he’d have to target religious institutions with more controversial views on sexual issues.

  And so, on January 7, 2012, during a Republican debate, Obama media lackey George Stephanopoulos of ABC News asked Mitt Romney a very specific question. “Governor Romney,” the Keebler Elf giggled, “do you believe that states have the right to ban contraception? Or is that trumped by a constitutional right to privacy?” It would be hard to imagine a less relevant question. Nobody in the Republican Party has proposed banning contraception. No state has considered banning contraception for nearly fifty years. So what was this all about?

  Republicans found out—and so did religious people. On January 20, 2012, Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius announced that under the new Obamacare program, religious employers would be forced to provide health insurance including contraception.

  This was obviously an attempt to start a war with religious institutions. It’s one thing to ask religious institutions to stay out of the political limelight; it’s another thing to specifically ask them to overrule their own beliefs and provide coverage for what they consider to be sinful activity. The Obama administration had made its choice: Religious liberty didn’t matter. Only the collective secularist ideology did. “This decision was made after very careful consideration, including the important concerns some have raised about religious liberty,” Sebelius lied. “I believe this proposal strikes the appropriate balance between respecting religious freedom and increasing access to important preventive services.”3 Where exactly was the balance? Forcing the Catholic Church to provide condoms wasn’t balancing religious liberty against health needs—it was balancing secularism against religion, and finding religion wanting. After some blowback, the Democrats made a small exemption for churches, but continued to force religious business owners and institutions like charities, hospitals, and schools to provide contraception.

  The strategy was obvious: attack religious institutions; force Republicans to side with religious institutions; imply that Republicans are siding with religious institutions not because they believe in religious liberty, but because they secretly want to ban contraceptives altogether. It was now crystal clear just why George Stephanopoulos had mentioned birth control back on January 7. He was softening the ground for the Obama administration blitzkrieg on religion. As Mitt Romney pointed out, “You recall, back in the debate we had George Stephanopoulos talking all about birth control. We wondered why in the world that contraception—it’s like, ‘why’s he going there?’ Well, we found out when Barack Obama continued his attack on religious conscience.”4

  When Republicans tried to force a bill through the Senate that would have stripped the contraceptive mandate from Obamacare, Democratic bullies denounced them. “The closeness of this vote shows how high the stakes are for women in this country,” said Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY). “A Republican-led Senate might pass this bill. A Republican president like Mitt Romney would definitely sign it.” And the Obama administration chimed in, too: “The Obama administration,” said Sebelius, “believes that decisions about medical care should be made by a woman and her doctor, not a woman and her boss. We encourage the Senate to reject this cynical attempt to roll back decades of progress in women’s health.”5

  This wasn’t progress in women’s health. Sebelius and all other women were still free to go down to CVS and pick up Yaz themselves. They were also free to choose jobs with nonreligious employers. In fact, this wasn’t even a “women’s health” issue at all. Choosing birth control is just that . . . a choice. It isn’t healthy or unhealthy.

  But the Obama administration wasn’t interested in honesty. They were interested in fighting a war on religion. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi took the lead in that war. Pelosi, who purports to be a Catholic, said that this was a “women’s health issue” rather than a religious issue. Then she called Catholics hypocrites. “Ninety percent of Catholic women of childbearing age use birth control,” she spouted. “It’s a matter of conscience for each woman, her doctor, her husband, her family and her God to make their own decisions. And as a Catholic, I support the right of a woman to make that decision.”6 As a Catholic, she apparently also supported Thomas Cromwell–type terrorism aimed at the Catholic Church. If Pelosi stood up as a Catholic, she was also standing against every bish
op in the United States. Literally.7

  The battle between religion and secularism truly took center stage when congressional Democrats brought forth one Sandra Fluke, a radical feminist activist who had enrolled at Georgetown Law School, a Catholic institution, planning to protest their health-care coverage. Fluke played the poor, downtrodden student, even though she and her boyfriend somehow scraped together the cash to take vacations to Europe. Called before a congressional committee, Fluke told her sob story: “When I look around my campus, I see the faces of the women affected, and I have heard more and more of their stories.” Sandra was apparently under the grave misimpression that she went to school in Rwanda. She told horror story after horror story—an anonymous lesbian who had to have an ovary removed because the school wouldn’t cover her birth control pills, an anonymous girl who didn’t go for an STD test after being raped. All anonymous. How strange. But she continued, “Women [whose contraception isn’t covered by the school] have no choice but to go without contraception. . . . We refuse to pick between a quality education and our health, and we resent that, in the 21st century, anyone thinks it’s acceptable to ask us to make this choice simply because we are women.” Fluke put the cost of contraception at about $3,000 annually.8

  It was typical secularist bullying—anonymous sob story nonsense mixed with fact, a political diatribe against the Catholic Church. Essentially, Fluke was saying that if a girl wants to have sex and work for the Vatican, the pope should have an obligation to hand over the Trojans. And since Fluke wanted to have sex and go to a Catholic school, they should pay for it.

  It was absurd.

  When Rush Limbaugh called Fluke a “slut” on air for essentially asking a Catholic university to subsidize her sex life—an inappropriate response that Rush quickly apologized for—the left went berserk. Suddenly the world’s leading radio entertainer found himself the center of an Obama-orchestrated assault. Obama pivoted off the war on religion and suggested instead that conservatives were starting a “war on women.” President Obama immediately activated his “I’m a sympathetic fellow” face (and hid his gleeful “I get to bash Rush Limbaugh!” face) and called up Fluke to offer his support. As Rachel Maddow body double and White House press secretary Jay Carney said, Obama wanted to “express his disappointment, that she was the subject of an inappropriate personal attack and thank her for exercising her rights as a citizen to speak out on public policy.” Carney said they talked for “several minutes . . . [Obama] said the personal attacks directed her way are inappropriate. The fact that political discourse has become debased in many ways is bad enough. It’s worse when directed at a private citizen simply expressing her views on a matter of public policy.”9