Ep. 60 - The Left Won't Stop Pushing Its Religion On Us
Episode Stats
Words per Minute
147.5206
Summary
Pro-abortion pundit Tommy Lahren took to the airwaves yesterday to declare that overturning Roe v. Wade would be religious judicial activism and thus unconstitutional. In this episode, I discuss why this is a lazy and stupid talking point.
Transcript
00:00:00.000
So we Christian conservatives are very often accused of trying to impose our religion on
00:00:06.820
others, of trying to push our religion, no matter what the topic is, no matter what we're
00:00:11.760
talking about. It always comes back to that. Our opponent is always going to accuse us in the end
00:00:18.560
of you're trying to push your religion on me. And this will even happen when they're the first ones
00:00:24.800
to bring up religion. So I don't know how many times I've had a conversation like this where
00:00:29.300
I'm talking often to a liberal and they'll say, well, you know, the Bible and Jesus agree with me
00:00:37.820
on this topic. I mean, Jesus said himself that he agrees with me on whatever topic we're talking
00:00:42.960
about. And then I'll say, well, no, he doesn't. And in fact, here are a couple of verses that prove
00:00:48.200
and then he'll say, stop pushing your religion on me. Why do you bring up religion all the time?
00:00:53.020
I didn't. You did. So there's this weird thing that liberals do. Well, they will try to use
00:00:58.300
their first tactic is to try to use my religion against me. And when that doesn't work, then they'll
00:01:04.400
claim that religion has nothing to do with it and we shouldn't be talking about religion. So this is
00:01:08.460
the way it usually goes. This is especially the case when it comes to the topic of abortion and now
00:01:14.160
Roe v. Wade, which has been the subject of conversation, obviously, for the last couple of
00:01:18.900
weeks. And we were again, as conservatives, we were once again accused of this on, of all places,
00:01:25.920
Fox News yesterday, when pro-abortion pundit Tommy Lahren took to the airwaves to declare on Fox News
00:01:34.780
that overturning Roe v. Wade would be religious judicial activism and thus unconstitutional, she says.
00:01:43.380
And this, this is a Nancy Pelosi level talking point. The idea that it is unconstitutional
00:01:53.440
and religious activism to overturn Roe v. Wade is a Nancy Pelosi level talking point. And when I say
00:02:00.780
Nancy Pelosi level, I mean that it is radically progressive and also it is extremely lazy and
00:02:08.540
incredibly stupid. And I don't know how else to put it. Just lazy and stupid talking point.
00:02:16.760
And yet this, one of the most radical, one of the laziest, one of the stupidest leftist talking point
00:02:23.840
is coming out of the mouth of an alleged spokeswoman for conservatism, like someone that people turn to
00:02:31.260
for insights into conservatism. I mean, it's, it's, it's, it's mind boggling. But I think Tommy did us a
00:02:38.920
favor by bringing this up because it gives us the opportunity to discuss why this claim of pushing
00:02:44.840
religion by opposing the murder of infants is false. And so I, I want to take advantage of that
00:02:52.420
opportunity. And there are a few points to make here. So first of all, Roe v. Wade and abortion are kind
00:02:59.860
of two separate topics in that, if you are a, if you are a rational thinking person and you understand
00:03:06.380
how the government works and you understand how the constitution works or is supposed to work,
00:03:10.360
and you understand how the Supreme court works or is supposed to work, then you should be opposed to
00:03:16.340
Roe v. Wade on that basis alone. Even if you think abortion is the greatest thing in the world,
00:03:22.300
if you claim to be a constitutionalist, which Tommy does, then you should definitely be opposed
00:03:29.780
to Roe v. Wade on constitutional grounds, even if you don't oppose it on moral grounds or on any
00:03:36.620
other ground. It is not judicial activism, much less is it religious judicial activism to overturn
00:03:43.980
previous examples of judicial activism. That's something the court should do. Roe v. Wade itself
00:03:52.520
was judicial activism. So the main legal argument against Roe is not that abortion is a terrible
00:03:59.760
thing and it kills a person, although that is a legal argument against it. And I think a pretty good
00:04:04.660
one, but that's not the, actually the primary legal argument. The primary legal argument against Roe
00:04:10.100
is that Roe itself was incorrect legal decision. This is what happened in Roe v. Wade. The Supreme court
00:04:18.220
found in the constitution, a right to abortion, even though abortion is never mentioned anywhere in
00:04:27.580
the, in the document. There's no, there's no mention of abortion in the constitution, nor did any of the
00:04:35.160
framers even hint that they had abortion anywhere in their minds when they wrote the document. But of
00:04:41.580
course the court recognized this obstacle because it had to. And so it, this is what it did. It
00:04:47.800
inferred a right to abortion from the right to privacy found in the 14th amendment. The only
00:04:56.060
problem of course, is that the 14th amendment doesn't say anything about a right to privacy.
00:05:00.540
There is no right to privacy. The phrase right to privacy doesn't appear anywhere in the bill of
00:05:05.760
rights at all. The phrase right to privacy is a phrase used by previous courts. So they use the
00:05:11.460
precedent of previous courts to infer it in amendment where it didn't exist and where, even if the
00:05:17.680
right to privacy did exist in that amendment, it still wouldn't have anything to do at all with
00:05:22.560
abortion. So again, the court founded its right to abortion, which is not enumerated, on another right,
00:05:30.500
which is not enumerated, and which even if it were enumerated, would not apply at all to abortion.
00:05:37.540
But the case is even more absurd than that, because let's look at the 14th amendment.
00:05:43.340
Section 1 of the 14th amendment, which is where this right to abortion came from,
00:05:50.640
especially this part of it. Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property
00:06:00.440
without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the
00:06:09.240
laws. So there's nothing in there about privacy. There's nothing in there about abortion. But
00:06:16.560
again, as just a rational person, if you were to not, you know, not knowing anything about Roe v. Wade,
00:06:24.260
or even anything about the Constitution, if you were to read that phrase, and then someone were to ask
00:06:30.180
you, how does that apply to abortion? What's the first thing you would say? You would say, well,
00:06:34.320
clearly this is a law against abortion, because you can't deprive any person of life without due
00:06:38.980
process of law, and also equal protection under the law. So abortion obviously deprives a human
00:06:46.660
being of a life. That's a biological fact. You have a living human organism, which is now not living
00:06:54.140
anymore because of abortion. And there's no due process of law. Also, these unborn humans are,
00:07:00.380
by definition, not treated equally. They have no, forget about equal protection, they have zero
00:07:05.420
protection under the law. So that's the only way a sane person could possibly apply that clause to
00:07:13.060
abortion. But instead, the court found you can't deprive any person of life, liberty, property without
00:07:18.280
due process of law as a codification of our right to kill people. I mean, what? But, you know,
00:07:27.320
this, apparently some conservatives find that to be completely rational. This is judicial activism.
00:07:35.120
Judicial activism is when the court realizes that a particular thing is not in the Constitution,
00:07:40.880
so it issues a ruling pretending that that thing is in the Constitution because it, the court,
00:07:48.480
believes that it should be in the Constitution. That's what judicial activism is. And that's what
00:07:54.840
the court did in Roe v. Wade. Without saying it directly, although they almost said it directly,
00:08:02.540
their point was, well, yeah, of course the Constitution doesn't protect abortion, but it
00:08:07.880
should. And so we're just going to say that it does. Here's the thing. There is a process.
00:08:15.520
If we decide, or if the government decides, if elected representatives decide, who allegedly are
00:08:23.580
at the mercy of the people, if they decide that on behalf of the people, that a certain thing should
00:08:31.900
be in the Constitution, though it isn't, or a certain thing which is in the Constitution should
00:08:36.080
not be, there is a process by which those things can be added in. It's called amending. And that is a
00:08:45.220
legislative process. It is not a judicial process. The judiciary cannot look at the Constitution and
00:08:52.300
say, well, that should be in there, so we'll just say that it is. They can't do that. The legislative
00:08:58.980
branch can do that. And so when the judicial branch acts like the legislative branch, that is judicial
00:09:05.560
activism. So no matter how you feel about abortion, it is clear that Roe v. Wade is the number one prime
00:09:12.520
example of judicial activism. Second thing, putting Roe to the side, okay? So that's Roe v. Wade.
00:09:20.960
Let's ask this question. Is it bad? Is there something wrong with a Christian fighting against
00:09:27.960
abortion, fighting for its prohibition legally, because he, the Christian, feels called to do so by his
00:09:34.720
faith? I mean, let's just, you know, according to Tommy and other leftists, we pro-lifers, you know, we're
00:09:41.480
only fighting for this because we're Christian. Well, let's just say that's true in the case of many, for the
00:09:47.580
case of many pro-lifers. So does that make us wrong? Does that make us incorrect? And if it is, if it does
00:09:57.260
make us wrong, if it is bad, if it is theocratic, if it is disqualifying, well, then guess what?
00:10:03.760
Guess what we've also disqualified? The abolition of slavery, civil rights, many other things. After all,
00:10:11.580
many of the great human rights fights and victories in American history have been motivated on the part
00:10:17.700
of many of the people fighting for them by Christian convictions. So I ask you, is the legitimacy
00:10:23.980
of slavery abolition now suddenly called into question because most of the abolitionists were
00:10:29.940
devout Christians, and the only reason that they were abolitionists is because of the fact of their
00:10:36.200
religious faith? Should we be scolding the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. for pushing religion on the
00:10:46.800
country? Because his conviction about civil rights and equal rights was clearly motivated by his Christian
00:10:53.880
faith? I mean, what about all the people? If you were to, you know, find a World War II veteran and ask
00:10:59.500
him, why did you go overseas and fight the Nazi scourge? I guarantee you that a great many of them would
00:11:08.580
answer that at least part of the reason was their faith, their Christian faith. So does that, does that
00:11:17.440
call into question what they did? Does that, does that make World War II into a holy war all of a sudden?
00:11:22.920
Is, is America a theocracy because it has civil rights, just based on the fact that most of the
00:11:28.380
people fighting for civil rights at the time were Christian? Or do we recognize that though their
00:11:35.120
motivations, in the case of the abolitionists, of the case of the people fighting for civil rights and so
00:11:39.060
on, though their motivations may have been Christian, their aim and the results of their fight
00:11:45.820
were humanitarian and democratic. Here's the third thing, and this is the real point. Whatever, whatever
00:11:53.260
might be the personal motivations of a pro-lifer, a person doesn't need to be Christian to be pro-life.
00:12:02.500
And the government doesn't need to be a theocracy to outlaw the murder of the, of unborn humans.
00:12:08.880
The claim that pro-lifers are making, again, putting aside their personal motivations and their
00:12:15.540
personal beliefs, because that is 100% irrelevant. The claim that we make as pro-lifers, we make
00:12:23.240
basically two claims, and neither of them have anything to do with Christian theology.
00:12:29.260
The first claim is a scientific claim. We claim that humans in the womb are human,
00:12:35.300
because they can't be anything else. It is, a human in the womb is a living organism that is a
00:12:41.000
biological fact, okay, that no scientist in the world disputes. None, not a single one.
00:12:49.580
A human in the womb is a living organism, period, end of discussion. That is a scientific reality.
00:12:54.300
There is no way around it. Here's another reality. If it's a living organism, it must belong to a species.
00:13:01.960
It has to. All living organisms do. Here's another fact. If it's a living organism conceived
00:13:08.500
by two members of a certain species, then that living organism must also be a member of that same
00:13:15.500
species. So, two kangaroos cannot conceive a shark. Two sharks cannot conceive an ostrich. Two human
00:13:21.980
beings cannot conceive anything but a human being. So, we have a living organism who must be a human
00:13:27.640
being. That is our scientific claim. And it is, it's not even a claim. It is a fact that we are just
00:13:34.660
asserting. Here's the second claim that we make. That, and this is a, and I admit, this is a moral
00:13:42.900
claim. So, we have the scientific claim, and now we have the moral claim. That claim is that a human
00:13:48.740
in the womb, because he is human, ought to be treated just like every other human, and ought to have the
00:13:56.120
same rights as every other human. So, we make the exact same moral claim that the abolitionists made
00:14:03.600
about slavery. And you could, now you could disagree, and you could say, well, no, it's not the same thing.
00:14:08.320
But the fact is, we are making the same moral claim. It's not a Christian theological claim. It is a moral
00:14:15.320
claim. And it has to be moral, because anytime you get into ought to, okay, so I'm saying that a human
00:14:22.580
being ought to be treated as a human being, anytime you use the word ought to, then you're talking about
00:14:29.860
morality. So, if you have any ideas whatsoever about how a person ought to behave, and how we ought to
00:14:37.560
act as a society, and what, and how things ought to be, then those are moral beliefs that you have.
00:14:45.000
They're not scientific beliefs. They are moral beliefs. And in that way, every law
00:14:52.320
our whole legal system is based on a moral framework, because the law, by definition,
00:14:59.500
tells people what they should do and should not do. And it even punishes them for doing things they
00:15:05.400
shouldn't do. That is a moral process. Does that mean that the law itself is inherently Christian?
00:15:14.800
Does that mean that there were no laws before Christianity came along? I mean, honestly,
00:15:19.340
I'm flattered that the way leftists talk about Christianity, they basically give us credit for,
00:15:26.100
I don't know, Christians, we invented law, we invented human decency, dignity, we invented morality.
00:15:33.100
I mean, these are all ours. And honestly, I'd love to take credit for all that. But no,
00:15:38.240
these are broader and things that pre-existed Christian theology. Now, it is true that the
00:15:47.440
pro-life position, while not specifically Christian, is grounded inevitably in a belief in a creator God.
00:15:55.140
That is true. So I admit that. But if that's what you mean by pushing religion, then fine. But then the
00:16:04.480
entire doctrine of human rights is also theocratic and should be abolished. And what is the doctrine
00:16:11.240
of human rights? And the doctrine of human rights is, in fact, a doctrine. It is a dogma. It is not a
00:16:18.440
scientific observation. Human rights are not things that can be observed within the person. If you look
00:16:25.600
within a person, you're not going to find, oh, yeah, there's their right to free speech right there.
00:16:29.140
No. Again, human rights, that is a spiritual doctrine. And what is the doctrine? Well,
00:16:39.300
Thomas Jefferson helpfully outlined it for us. We hold these truths to be self-evident,
00:16:44.100
that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable
00:16:51.620
rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
00:16:55.620
A human right cannot be unalienable. It cannot be inherent. It cannot be self-evident unless it
00:17:06.420
is a part of our very nature as humans and endowed by a force above us, above humanity,
00:17:13.260
a creative force. That is the founding document of the United States of America.
00:17:19.400
And that is what it says right at the top, that we are founding this country upon this spiritual
00:17:27.400
doctrine of human rights that are endowed by a creator God. That is literally the foundation
00:17:37.360
of the United States of America. And it has to be that way, because if rights are simply assigned
00:17:46.240
by the government or decided by the whims of the mob or voted on by the people, then rights are not
00:17:54.320
unalienable. They are not self-evident. They are not inherent. They are not endowed supernaturally.
00:18:00.760
And therefore, the very foundations of our country are void, and the Bill of Rights itself should be
00:18:07.040
discarded. But then here's the problem. So if we get rid of human rights, we get rid of the Bill of
00:18:14.620
Rights, then the basis for the right to abortion has also been discarded. You can't disqualify the
00:18:25.560
argument against abortion without disqualifying the argument for it. That's the problem that you have
00:18:38.240
if you're pro-abortion. Roe v. Wade and pro-abortion people, they claim that there is a right to abortion.
00:18:50.300
And I assume that they believe that it is an unalienable right. In fact, I know they believe
00:18:56.120
that, because they would say that if it's not unalienable, if it's a right that's just decided
00:19:00.440
by the people, well, then you couldn't complain when the people decide to take the right away.
00:19:04.040
But no, you're saying it's an unalienable right. And if it's unalienable, then it's part of our
00:19:09.780
human nature. And if it's part of our human nature, then it was endowed by God. So what
00:19:13.040
you're saying is that God has given you the right to kill your children.
00:19:20.120
That is a spiritual argument that you are making. And it is a demented, insane spiritual argument.
00:19:27.260
So the pro-life case is not Christian, but it is spiritual.
00:19:42.160
And if you have a problem with all of that, and you don't like to admit that these are spiritual
00:19:46.860
arguments, then at least have the intellectual integrity to admit that you have a problem
00:19:52.160
with human rights themselves, which are also spiritual, in that they cannot be observed,
00:20:05.300
And if they are real at all, they must be inherent, and therefore objective.
00:20:16.760
or maybe I'm on the third thing, I can't remember.