The Left’s cultural imperialism: Rebutting the rebuttal

The Left’s cultural imperialism: Rebutting the rebuttal

Rick Miller’s rebuttal of my column misread or dodged what I said

I am honored that Rick Miller took the time to express his opinions on my opinion piece “The Left’s cultural imperialism” in a recent column for The Independent. But most of his column consisted of liberal talking points, misreading or dodging what I actually said.

A straw man argument is “a misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent’s real argument.” Miller sets up straw men and then proceeds to knock them down.

Here’s a look at what he wrote versus what I actually said:

Gender flexibility

Miller clearly missed the boat on this one, misreading my phrase “at will.”  As a result, he launches into a lecture on LGBTQ biology and psychology.

I said nothing about these topics. I believe LBGTQ individuals deserve basic civil rights.

Instead, I expressed alarm about the Obama administration expanding transgender rights by stepping on the rights of women and girls.

Obama’s rules have the effect of allowing any biological male, not just transgenders, to choose his gender “at will” day by day, opening the door to exhibitionists, child abusers and second-rate male athletes. Thanks to these new rules, men have walked into women’s restrooms and locker rooms.

Men interested in entering women’s facilities need not even claim a gender identity as happened in the Seattle locker room above. The Seattle Parks Department threw up its hands, acknowledging that “sexual orientation and gender identity laws are based on subjective and unverifiable identities, not objective traits, and thus are prone for abuse.” You don’t say!

Miller chides conservatives for their “rejection of scientific evidence,” but liberals defend rules and laws based on “subjective and unverifiable identities, not objective traits.”

As I said in my column, “Women’s rights advocates, female athletes, and parents worried about their daughters find themselves on the defensive.” Miller dismisses these very real concerns by stating that parents should be more worried about “clergy, evangelicals, athletic coaches, and some politicians and teachers.”

Do liberals really believe that young girls should be changing into swimsuits in public locker rooms with anatomically-complete males regardless of their gender identity? If not, why do they support Obama’s rules?

The Democrat-controlled House passed a so-called “Equality Act” that among other provisions proposes to add gender identity as a protected class in anti-discrimination law, codifying Obama’s rules. Julie Beck, a lesbian activist on Baltimore’s LGBTQ Commission, testified that including gender identity in the proposed law is a blow to hard-earned women’s rights:

Nine-time Wimbledon champion and LGBTQ advocate Martina Navratilova agrees, saying that letting biological males compete in women’s sports is “insane” and “cheating.”

An appropriate balance of competing civil rights is desperately needed: I’m for restoring the heretofore legally-protected privacy of women and girls.

Same-sex marriage

Miller sets up a straw man here by launching into a lengthy defense of the Supreme Court’s decision legalizing same-sex marriage.

I do not condone discriminating against LGBTQ individuals, married or not. I did note that the court’s decision remains controversial, but my imperialism charge was not based on the decision itself.

I object to forcing people to participate in same-sex wedding ceremonies and to liberals’ insistence that “affirmative action demonstrating active support is required of all, regardless of deeply held and longstanding moral and religious beliefs.”

Liberals insist that any supplier of goods or services must serve a same sex wedding ceremony on demand. But there is comparable legal precedence for individuals refusing to participate.

The Church Amendments, named for former Democratic Sen. Frank Church of Idaho, provides “conscience protections for health care providers.” Doctors, nurses and hospitals can refuse to perform or assist in “abortion or sterilization procedures if doing so would be contrary to the provider’s religious beliefs or moral convictions.”

True to form, the imperial Obama administration implicitly encouraged hospitals to ignore the law. But when challenged in court, a landmark settlement resulted in hospitals choosing to obey the law rather than follow the administration.

I believe that courts will find similarly for those whose “religious beliefs or moral convictions” deter them from participating in same-sex marriage ceremonies.

I would ask liberals if they believe a woman-owned catering firm should be legally bound to cater a pornography convention. How about a black band asked to perform at a Ku Klux Klan meeting? Should a Jewish or Muslim-owned firm be required by law to provide side dishes at a pork producers’ barbeque?

In each of these cases, a number of other firms would gladly take the business. In contrast, liberal imperialists seek out small businesses whose owners have religious or moral objections to same-sex marriage to provide wedding announcements, cakes, flowers, or photography with the sole intent of humiliating them in the media and to prove that “bigotry” is rampant.

Abortion

Another topic, another of Miller’s straw men.

Miller lectures on right-wing imperialists wanting to overturn Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion. But I said nothing about that decision: I stated clearly that abortion is the law of the land.

What I did say is that I object to liberals’ insistence that abortion should be funded by the government.

The Hyde Amendment, passed in 1977 and renewed every year since, prohibits federal Medicaid funds from being used for abortions with exceptions to protect the mother’s life and in cases of rape and incest.

Perhaps surprising to Miller, the House Democratic leadership again included the Hyde Amendment in this year’s omnibus spending bill. Why would they do that?

It turns out that federal funding of abortions is not nearly as popular as liberals seem to think. As reported on Slate’s website, “In every poll, a plurality of Americans opposes public funding of abortions. In every poll but one, that plurality is a majority. The questions vary, but the result is the same. Respondents support ‘banning federal funding for abortion’ except in rape cases or to save the woman’s life.”

It’s nice to be in the clear majority on this issue, Miller’s rebuttal notwithstanding.

Miller’s “further comments”

Miller took issue with my statement that “The left champions racial and ethnic diversity yet vehemently opposes cultural and religious diversity, instead demanding uniformity of thought. See a dichotomy here?”

Despite his protest, I’m on safe ground. The very liberal New York Times felt obliged to write an article asking, “Is It Possible to Be an Anti-Abortion Democrat?” Politico penned an article titled “If You’re a Pro-Life Democrat…You Know You’re Standing Alone.” We can add former Baltimore LGBTQ commissioner Julie Beck who was sacked for failing to toe the party line.

I particularly enjoyed Miller taking me to task for “not offering any suggestions or solutions for bringing the left and right together.” That charge was followed by Miller’s characterizations of conservative opinions as “fearmongering diatribes … characterized by misstatement or misrepresentation of factual information, sometimes outright lying, and even by generating or perpetuating conspiracy theories.”

I regularly object to liberal opinion but never disparage individuals with ad hominem attacks like this.

How about Miller’s use of the phrase “right-wing ‘sullen’ racists and bigots?” Liberals fling the words “racist” and “bigot” around with reckless abandon to the point that they have become meaningless. Liberals tend to be so self-righteous that anyone who opposes them must be a racist or bigot. That’s hardly the way to “bring the left and right together.”

Ending on a positive note, I heartily agree with Miller’s statement of “support for civil rights for all, toleration of differing lifestyles, and acceptance of differing religious practices.” Finding a balance between competing civil rights — including the freedom of religion, the first civil right in the Bill of Rights — is our collective challenge.

The viewpoints expressed above are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of The Independent.

How to submit an article, guest opinion piece, or letter to the editor to The Independent

Do you have something to say? Want your voice to be heard by thousands of readers? Send The Independent your letter to the editor or guest opinion piece. All submissions will be considered for publication by our editorial staff. If your letter or editorial is accepted, it will run on suindependent.com, and we’ll promote it through all of our social media channels. We may even decide to include it in our monthly print edition. Just follow our simple submission guidelines and make your voice heard:

Articles related to “The Left’s cultural imperialism: Rebutting the rebuttal”

The Left’s cultural imperialism

The Left’s cultural imperialism: A rebuttal

The Left’s Do-It-Yourself Authoritarianism