Culture Warrior Page 7

  It is hard to calibrate the influence of the conservative money. Certainly, it has helped elect Republicans and made it easier to combat referendums such as the ones on gay marriage. But, based on my investigation, it seems most of the right-wing cash is directed toward elective politics, as I’ve mentioned. Richard Mellon Scaife, for example, funded the notorious “Arkansas Project,” which caused huge headaches for President Clinton. The Project was designed to dig up dirt on Mr. Clinton and feed it to the media. Much of the elite media rejected the information, but when it reached Matt Drudge and conservative guys like that, it quickly became public.

  For traditionalists fighting the culture war, the far-right money actually damages the battle plan. The left can point to a variety of smear campaigns like the Arkansas Project and the Swift Boat attacks on John Kerry to justify their own attack machines. “If the right can do it, why can’t we?” they wail. And there is some truth to that. But, again, the amount of smear exposure the far right is able to deliver pales against the defamation the far left can deliver because of elite media sympathies.

  However, traditional warriors would be wise to avoid and, indeed, criticize personal attacks against the left that derive from conservatives. Taking and seizing the high ground is imperative in any military campaign and it is vital in the culture war. In addition to speaking out against the Swift Boaters, I criticized people trying to smear Ted Kennedy and anti–Iraq war congressman John Murtha. I also scolded Ann Coulter for writing that some left-leaning 9/11 widows were “enjoying” the aftermath of their husbands’ deaths. That was way over the line, in my opinion. You can make your point without being mean-spirited.

  For those stands, I took some heat from the far right, but my strategy is clear: If traditionalists want to win the culture war, they must fight with honor, because honor, as the true traditionalist understands, is a hallmark of America.

  With that, the opposing armies have been defined. Now it’s time to take a look at some victories and defeats on the culture-war battlefield, as well as some defining moments in that struggle.

  To conquer a nation, destroy the values of its people.

  —THE ART OF CULTURE WAR, O’REILLY TZU

  As we’ve seen, there is a huge philosophical difference between secular-progressives and traditionalists, and that gulf will never narrow. Cultural détente is not in the offing.

  Here’s the basic divide: While most traditional Americans subscribe to the scriptural Ten Commandments brought down by Moses, the S-Ps have developed their own secular Ten Commandments. These edicts, as listed below, would have sent the Prophet screaming into the desert. Forget the golden calf; the S-P doctrine makes worshiping false idols look like midnight mass. Here follow the new secular-progressive commandments, handed down at Hollywood and Vine sometime in the late 1960s:

  • Thou Shalt Not Make Any Judgment Regarding Most Private Personal Behavior. Man/Woman Is the Master/Mistress of the Universe and His/Her Gratification Is Paramount.

  • Thou Shalt Not Worship or Acknowledge God in the Public Square, for Such an Exposition Could Be Offensive to Humankind.

  • Thou Shalt Take from the Rich and Give to the Poor. No Private Property Is Sacrosanct.

  • Thou Shalt Circumvent Mother and Father in Personal Issues Such as Abortion and Sex Education in Public Schools.

  • Thou Shalt Kill if Necessary to Promote Individual Rights in Cases of Abortion and Euthanasia.

  • Thou Shalt Be Allowed to Bear False Witness Against Thy Neighbor if That Person Stands Against Secular Humanism.

  • Thou Shalt Not Wage Preemptive War in Any Circumstance.

  • Thou Shalt Not Impede the Free Movement of Any Human Being on Earth. All Countries Should Be Welcoming Places Without Borders.

  • Thou Shalt Not Prohibit Narcotics or Impede Personal Gratification in This Area.

  • Thou Shalt Not Limit the Power of Government in Order to Provide “Prosperity” to All.

  If you are willing to abide by those commandments, embrace and live them to the fullest, then the secular-progressive cause wants you. Bad.

  I know, some of you may think I am exaggerating. Not so. Those secular commandments are all part of the current S-P political agenda. Look it up. And this libertine thinking is not limited to S-P cranks in Berkeley, California, or Boulder, Colorado. To prove my point, let’s turn again to holy writ for the secular-progressive movement: the pages of the New York Times.

  Every Sunday, a man named Randy Cohen writes a column in the paper’s magazine called “The Ethicist.” That’s ethics as in “the principle of right conduct.” On September 6, 2005, Mr. Cohen printed this question from an anonymous correspondent who lives in Brooklyn, New York: “I live in a gentrifying neighborhood. Someone on the block is dealing drugs that, I recently learned, are less benign than I’d assumed; he’s dealing crystal meth. I believe the drug laws are overly punitive, and I’ve never had a problem with the dealer. But I would like to see the block cleaned up and the drug traffic gone. What’s the morality of narcking on the neighbors?”

  Thereupon, Randy Cohen, the ethicist at the New York Times, gave the following moral advice: “If your local drug dealer is merely unsightly, do nothing. This is not to endorse dealing crystal meth but to assert that the war on drugs does more harm than the drug use it seeks to suppress. I would be reluctant to invoke laws that can be both inflexible and ineffectual.”

  Cohen goes on to compare prosecuting American dope dealers to the eighteenth-century English courts that sentenced people to death for a variety of crimes that we would find today to be misdemeanors. His point, if you can believe it, was that good people should decide for themselves what laws should be obeyed.

  This kind of blather would be comical if it were not so dangerous. Oh, by the way, speaking of comedy…exactly who is ethicist Randy Cohen? Well, he’s a former gag writer for Rosie O’Donnell’s daytime talk show and for Late Night with David Letterman. According to a friendly profile in the New Jersey Jewish News, Cohen has no background in theology, law, or philosophy. He’s a gag writer! This is who the New York Times is trotting out as its primary adviser on right and wrong. Swell.

  It is hard to believe, but Randy Cohen is basically telling his readers that prosecuting drug dealing is not a just cause, it is not morally right.

  Never mind that hard drugs like crystal meth destroy thousands of human beings every year and also contribute to horrendous crimes like child abuse and violent adult confrontations….

  Never mind that meth users spread the AIDS virus through the sharing of infected needles….

  Never mind that drug dealing has caused catastrophic damage to the nation’s poorest neighborhoods, often corrupting children and destroying families….

  Never mind that any person who would sell a substance as harmful as crystal meth (or any other hard drug) is a villain who deserves harsh punishment for peddling a substance that hurts so many human beings….

  Never mind all those things. The ethicist Randy Cohen, the man who defines what’s right at the New York Times, doesn’t like drug prohibitions, so he urges Americans to tolerate illegal drug dealing in their neighborhoods.

  This, ladies and gentlemen, epitomizes the secular-progressive mind-set and the attitude of one of the nation’s most widely read newspapers. This is exactly what the culture war is all about. What kind of country do you want? A country where a moral relativist like Randy Cohen defines right and wrong and dispenses ethical advice? A country where, if you don’t like the law, you allow lawbreakers to run wild? Isn’t that anarchy?

  It is apparent to me that the New York Times has deteriorated into a secular-progressive training manual, encouraging its opinion writers to spew forth radical and often dishonest viewpoints that badly damage America. Yes, I know the United States is a great nation because of diversified opinion and robust debate, but under publisher Arthur Sulzberger III and editor Bill Keller, the Times has become the country’s foremost promoter of secular-progressive
lunacy. I mean, come on, allowing a guy who sells crystal meth to operate with impunity? What kind of nutty analysis is that? What kind of newspaper employs an ethicist whose definition of right and wrong is, basically, “Do whatever you want even if it encourages illegality”?

  But the S-P agenda of the New York Times goes much deeper than just the writings of some loopy “ethicist.” The paper’s worldview is decidedly secular-progressive, and that spills over into just about every area. For example, in February 2006, a Danish newspaper published some political cartoons mocking the prophet Muhammad. The intent of the cartoons was to show the Islamic world that killing innocent people in the name of religion is insane. I’m sure you remember the controversy, as it caused a number of riots and deaths all over the world.

  Anyway, the New York Times refused to print the cartoons, and I did not show them on my program, either. I actually agreed with the Times that the cartoons were insulting to Islam and the story could be reported without a demonstration of the cartoons.

  But then, in a sidebar article explaining the power of visual images, the Times printed a picture of Mary, the mother of Jesus, covered with dung. That picture was taken at a disgraceful “art” exhibit in the Brooklyn Museum in 1999, which occasioned well-deserved controversy and outrage. So wasn’t printing that image insulting to Christians? The paper declined to insult Islam but was more than willing to show an image that might offend Christians. What kind of an editorial decision is that?

  Also, the Times had previously supported the exposition of a play called Corpus Christi that featured a gay, noncelibate Jesus. The paper called people objecting to the play enemies of “artistic expression.”

  So I’m sure you’re getting the picture here: Insulting Christianity is freedom of expression and should be allowed, but mocking Islam is another matter. I’ll explain the why behind the media anti-Christian bias later, when we examine the war against Christmas, but believe me, it has been going on for years in the S-P press.

  The tragedy is that the New York Times has a bunch of brilliant people working for it. If there was anyone in charge with a lick of sane perspective, the paper could provide a powerful watchdog role that would greatly enhance the lives of Americans. Instead, the paper has become a gleeful purveyor of S-P propaganda and an attack vehicle against traditionalists. What a loss for America. It is beyond sad.

  So count anti-Christian people and America’s drug dealers among those delighted with the secular-progressive movement. As I’ve pointed out, George Soros and Peter Lewis, the S-P moneymen, are not real big on religion but are huge on drug legalization. Lewis was described as a “functioning pothead” in a Fortune magazine article and was arrested in New Zealand in 2000 on drug charges that were later dropped. Soros’s big-money backing of medical marijuana legislation has led to chaos in San Francisco and parts of Oregon. With media like the New York Times providing a strong wind at their back, it is high times for Soros, Lewis, and also for their simpatico pal Randy Cohen. High times, indeed.

  Happy, happy Christmas that can win us back to the delusions of our childish days, that can recall for the old man the pleasures of his youth, that can transport the sailor and the traveler, thousands of miles away, back to his own fireside and his quiet home.

  —CHARLES DICKENS

  I think it’s safe to say that Mr. Dickens would not have approved of the ACLU or the secular-progressive strategy to diminish Christmas in America. In fact, the perennially beloved English writer would have been shocked and appalled had he, in the year 1865, taken a time-machine ride forward to Christmastime 2005. But I also think ol’ Charles would have liked me, and I know Tiny Tim would have.

  Please trust me when I tell you that, just a few years ago, I never envisioned being a culture warrior on behalf of Christmas. To me, Christmas has always been the most magical time of the year. I remember as a small child sitting on the stairs early Christmas morning before anyone else was up, staring down at the scene before me. Santa Claus had come! All the presents were neatly wrapped and perfectly placed under the tree (a real one). I was mesmerized. What treasures would my sister and I be getting? I just sat there and soaked it all in. I remember the moments vividly. Why would anyone want to mess with Christmas?

  But in recent years, the traditions of Christmas began to be portrayed in some quarters as somehow “controversial,” which really teed me off. So, in the fall of ’05, I set out to alert the nation that Christmas traditions were under siege and behind the action was a well-thought-out S-P campaign to marginalize the national holiday (which was almost unanimously approved by Congress and signed into law by President U. S. Grant on June 28, 1870).

  Night after night on my TV program, I presented the evidence: Giant retailers like Sears (and others) had banned the mention of the word “Christmas” in seasonal advertising. The Lowe’s Company told its store managers to sell “holiday” trees, not Christmas trees. The city of Boston changed the name of its Christmas tree on the Common to “Holiday Tree.” (It was changed back after Mayor Thomas Menino intervened.) There were scores of other examples.

  But why? Why did the word “Christmas” suddenly become controversial? Why did I have to spend quality TV time on this issue and, above all, why was I so viciously attacked in the media for making the situation public? Let us now analyze those questions.

  The ACLU began targeting Christmas at the start of the new millennium. Its anti-Christmas campaign began in small towns like Baldwin City, Kansas, where a local public school had a tradition of having an adult dressed as Santa Claus visit little elementary-school children, much to their delight. One year, a Protestant clergyman played the role of Saint Nick. That was it. The ACLU pounced, sending a letter to the school board demanding that all visits from Santa stop immediately because of the “religious” component.

  The Baldwin City School Board fought back and won, thanks to attorneys from the Arizona-based Alliance Defense Fund, who often go mano a mano with the ACLU lawyers over anti-Christian litigation. The courts have ruled time after time that secular symbols of the Christmas holiday like Santa Claus are not illegal, nor are displays of religious symbols if other displays are permitted as well. But that does not stop the ACLU madness. You have to give it to them: These secular warriors are truly relentless.

  The list of “controversies” got longer. In Benton, Louisiana, in Tipton, Iowa, in Cranston, Rhode Island, to name just a few places, the ACLU filed or threatened to file lawsuits objecting to Christmas displays. Each time, the ACLU lost.

  Then the fanatical group turned its attention to trying to ban Christmas carols in public schools by threatening legal action against a school board in Elizabeth, Colorado. But the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Denver, ruled that schools could permit traditional Christmas songs as long as students had an “opt-out” option.

  So the ACLU lost again? No, because in reality the expense of fighting such lawsuits intimidated many school districts and city councils. Gradually, Christmas trees did become “holiday trees,” Christmas vacation became “winter” vacation, and Christmas parades became “Festivals of Lights.” The ACLU had won in the public arena, even though it lost in court.

  Let me give you one final example that encapsulates the absurdity of this whole attack on Christmas. At the Ridgeway Elementary School in Dodgeville, Wisconsin, administrators allowed a play to be put on that featured the tune of the classic German Christmas carol “Silent Night,” but with a change in the lyrics. The Ridgeway version of “Silent Night”—which was written in 1818, by the way—went like this, if you care to hum along:

  Cold in the night, no one in sight,

  Winter winds whirl and bite.

  How I wish I were happy and warm,

  Safe with my family, out of the storm.

  Is that unbelievable? I believe even Jesus would be shaking his head. How do you say “give me a break” in Aramaic?

  So how have we arrived at this ridiculous point? The answer to that question is the
semi-successful perversion of the U.S. Constitution. The ACLU and other secular-progressive groups constantly say they are challenging public displays of Christmas and other spiritual expositions to protect Americans from the emergence of a “theocratic” government—that is, a governmental system driven by religious thought and judgments. The tired “separation of church and state” argument is used again and again to justify attacks on spirituality in the public square.

  But the “separation” argument is one big lie, a bogus piece of propaganda cooked up by an intentional misreading of the intent of the Constitution. This “wall of separation” falsehood has, however, been lovingly embraced by the secular media and foisted upon the American public with a ferocious intensity.

  Perhaps the most precise analysis of the bogus separation of church and state argument was put forth by Senator John Cornyn of Texas, who wrote:

  For generations, Christmas trees, nativity scenes, Menorahs and other traditional public holiday items have been displayed in places of business and public squares, largely without objection. Groups could sing carols, schools could hold pageants, children could exchange Christmas cards…

  Today, however, it seems the first order of business every December may soon be for Americans to consult their lawyers. For only then might they know whether they are in the proper setting or sufficiently in compliance with complicated Supreme Court “multi-pronged” or “balancing” tests before celebrating [Christmas or Hanukah].

  The First Amendment clearly provides that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion nor interfering with the free exercise thereof. Nothing in these provisions requires government to be hostile to religious speech or religious liberty. The Constitution nowhere requires government to expel expressions of faith from the public square nor forbids government from acknowledging—indeed celebrating—the important role faith plays in the lives of the American people.