The following comes from a December 7 Washington Post opinion piece by David Bernstein:
The presidential election was so close that many factors were “but-for” causes of Donald Trump’s victory. One that’s been mostly overlooked is Trump’s surprising success with religious voters. According to exit polls, Trump received 81 percent of the white evangelical Christian vote, and Hillary Clinton only 16 percent. Trump did significantly better than the overtly religious Mitt Romney and the overtly evangelical George W. Bush. He likely over-performed among other theologically conservative voters, such as traditionalist Catholics, as well. Not bad for a thrice-married adulterer of no discernible faith.
To what can we attribute Trump’s success? The most logical answer is that religious traditionalists felt that their religious liberty was under assault from liberals, and they therefore had to hold their noses and vote for Trump. As Sean Trende of RealClear Politics noted, since 2012:
Democrats and liberals have: booed the inclusion of God in their platform at the 2012 convention (this is disputed, but it is the perception); endorsed a regulation that would allow transgendered students to use the bathroom and locker room corresponding to their identity; attempted to force small businesses to cover drugs they believe induce abortions; attempted to force nuns to provide contraceptive coverage; forced Brendan Eich to step down as chief executive officer of Mozilla due to his opposition to marriage equality; fined a small Christian bakery over $140,000 for refusing to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding; vigorously opposed a law in Indiana that would provide protections against similar regulations – despite having overwhelmingly supported similar laws when they protected Native American religious rights – and then scoured the Indiana countryside trying to find a business that would be affected by the law before settling upon a small pizza place in the middle of nowhere and harassing the owners. In 2015, the United States solicitor general suggested that churches might lose their tax exempt status if they refused to perform same-sex marriages. In 2016, the Democratic nominee endorsed repealing the Hyde Amendment, thereby endorsing federal funding for elective abortions.
Megan McArdle of Bloomberg similarly pointed out, “Over the last few years, as controversies have erupted over the rights of cake bakers and pizza places to refuse to cater gay weddings, the rights of nuns to refuse to provide insurance that covers birth control, the rights of Catholic hospitals to refuse to perform abortions, and the rights of Christian schools to teach (and require students and teachers to practice) traditional Christian morality, some Christians have begun to feel that their communities are under existential threat.”
Let’s focus on one of these incidents, the time the solicitor general of the United States acknowledged that religious institutions that oppose as a matter of internal policy same-sex marriage may lose their tax exemptions. At oral argument in the Obergefell same-sex marriage case, there was the following colloquy:
Justice Samuel Alito: Well, in the Bob Jones case, the Court held that a college was not entitled to taxexempt status if it opposed interracial marriage or interracial dating. So would the same apply to a university or a college if it opposed same sex marriage?
Soliticitor General Verrilli: You know, I , I don’t think I can answer that question without knowing more specifics, but it’s certainly going to be an issue. I don’t deny that. I don’t deny that, Justice Alito. It is it is going to be an issue.
With the mainstream media busy celebrating the Supreme Court’s ultimate recognition of a right to same-sex marriage, this didn’t get that much attention in mainstream news outlets. But in the course of researching my book, “Lawless,” I noticed that Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr.’s answer was big news in both the conservative blogosphere and in publications catering to religiously traditionalist audiences. The idea that Regent University or Brigham Young University or the local Catholic university or the many hundreds of other religious schools — and potentially other religious organizations — could be put at a severe competitive disadvantage if they refused on theological grounds to extend the same recognition to same-sex couples as to opposite-sex couples struck many as a direct and serious assault on religious liberty.
In short, many religious Christians of a traditionalist bent believed that liberals not only reduce their deeply held beliefs to bigotry, but want to run them out of their jobs, close down their stores and undermine their institutions. When I first posted about this on Facebook, I wrote that I hope liberals really enjoyed running Brendan Eich out of his job and closing down the Sweet Cakes bakery, because it cost them the Supreme Court. I’ll add now that I hope Verrilli enjoyed putting the fear of government into the God-fearing because it cost his party the election.
As co-blogger Todd Zywicki wrote to me on Facebook, “When you find yourself in the Supreme Court adverse to the Little Sisters of the Poor you might consider whether maybe you have pushed a little too far.”
Excellent argument! I believe it.
Thank you for an insightful article. Those of us in fly-by country don’t appreciate being told that a male has the right to use the ladies room, or that we not only have to support Planner Parenthood with our taxes we have no right to object for fear of being sued in federal court Hopefully the new administration will address and correct these atrocities.
Trump is no example or role model, with his private life activities ! Making fun of the disabled, insulting, making fun of thers are against God’ Laws !
Right, Kristin: Good narrative. However, Huffington Post and Politico can be read for your talking points. Good narrative.
Every time I saw that political campaign ad about Trump making fun of a disabled person, I questioned how authentic it was. I heard it dozens of times but after awhile concluded the Democrats were running out of ammo because all they could do was attack Trump’s temperament. In time it lost it’s effectiveness.
If it was true that Trump ridiculed a disabled person, he was an idiot to do so. It’s disgusting!! HOWEVER, that ad ABSOLUTELY paled to what Hillary wanted with late term abortion. I’m still appalled that she EVEN said an unborn child had no rights up until they’re out of the womb and breathing on their own. I never doubted for one minute that she also would have preferred aborting disabled children such as the…
Kristine: Please tell me how your post is in any way relevant to the subject matter of the article. The election is over. Accept the results as an adult should.
roberto vicente— all good, decent, mature people in this world, regardless of their religion– can well understand and sympathize with Kristin’s views, regarding the horrific sin of harming and insulting crippled and disabled people! And Tiny Tim (the little crippled boy, in “A Christmas Carol”) said, “God bless us everyone!” Perhaps you need a miraculous conversion to God, in your life, like Scrooge! Our Lord came to us at Christmas, a dear little boy, unwanted by the world. And He died on a terrible Cross, for the world’s Salvation!
I agree, Kristin. But maybe God can use the worst people, for good, as He did, also, in Biblical days. Trump is sadly the “lesser of the two evils,” but has come out to support our Church, and pro-life. Let us now pray that God can use Trump, for good!
nuns 1, eco-witches 0
We are watching and waiting to see what Mr. Trump delivers as President Trump. The churches may fill again with devout parishioners praying for relief from a President whose policies very well may result in the end for the middle class. Stay tuned.
The Democratic Party is not a national party, is not diverse, and does not represesnt anything affirmative to benefit America. In fact, the Democratic Party is the party of death, dedicated to milking all it can from the largely manufactured demand of both the poor and the pampered that their sexual exercise should always be forever without consequence. And, to boot, there is big money to be made from baby parts for Planned Parenthood and affiliated entities.
The Democrats, by their actions and words, are comfortable as children of Satan. Americans should reject all Democrats and the cowardly Republicans that have refused to stand up to evil and give it a name. The Supreme Court argument only gave an outline of the likely steps to…
(Part Deux) ” . . . be taken against the Catholic Church in the near future. Fools.”
People don’t want the perversion of marriage and no political manipulations to legalize same sex marriage can change this – the redefining of marriage to make it a “sex-based” union instead of the historical “family-based” union is not acceptable no matter how much the homosexual activists try to “will it into existence”. The more that the left-wing elitists use propaganda slogans like “marriage equality”, rights”, “love is love” and “discrimination of LGBTIQAP+” (none of these things are true) and the more that they name/shame/boycott opponents, name-calling with “homophobia”, overwhelm-the-opposition tactics and political manipulation, the more that people reject such a regressive policy of same sex marriage. The West has been…
Homosexual marriage is the tail of the 60’s sexual revolution of free love which dismissed marriage as prohibitive to freedom to have sex with anybody and anyone at anytime – then along came the pill and legal abortion which took away the consequences. What has replaced traditional marriage – between one man and one woman for life – are the fake substitutes and token “marriages” based on convenience and self-gratification. The great damage is plain to see in a myriad of ways, especially with children (….the innocent, unborn children who are aborted get the worst treatment of all – they die). The history of the institution of marriage is quite clear: it was designed to unite a male and a female. I’m waiting to see how the definition…
The United States will suffer catastrophic punishments and chaos due to the United States Supreme Court decisions.
David Bernstein, of course of the “Washington Post:
‘Not bad for a thrice-married adulterer of no discernible faith.”
Obviously, Bernstein is a paragon of virtue and believes in the nuclear family and traditional marriage. Right? Hmm. Has never said so in his blog. And what of Trump’s opponent’s curious marital arrangement with Bill Clinton, then? Put that back in the White House again? Hmm.
Bernstein should at least mention that he was always a committed “#NeverTrumper”. Cf. his blog “The Volokh Conspiracy” where he has made his positions quite clear.
Right on. Well stated.
Beware, you Notre Dame football team and you Bolts, least you be scheduled to play The Little Sisters of the Poor next year!
For the record the author (David Bernstein) is not a Trump supporter. See:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/05/02/nevertrump/?utm_term=.c6254be97414
Donald Trump is “a thrice-married adulterer of no discernible faith” who supports gay marriage and was pro-choice all his life until he ran for President. God Bless America.