The Wall Street Journal - 21.10.2019

A18| Monday, October 21, 2019 THE WALL STREET JOURNAL.

May a ‘Separated’ State Coerce a Church?

Regarding William McGurn’s “Bill

Barr ‘Gets’ Religion” (Main Street,

Oct. 15): Progressive hostility to

Christian belief is palpable. Recently,

Democratic presidential hopeful Beto

O’Rourke said that he favored denying

tax exemption to any religious institu-

tion that opposed same-sex marriage.

Other Democratic candidates dis-

tanced themselves from Mr.

O’Rourke’s position, but if one wins

the White House will he or she con-

tinue to be tolerant of “intolerant”

Christian institutions that resist an

internal organizational and doctrinal

embrace of LGBTQ rights? Four years

ago, Obama administration Solicitor

General Donald Verrilli, when arguing

for same-sex marriage rights before

the Supreme Court, admitted that the

tax-exempt status of nonprofit organi-

zations is “certainly going to be an is-

sue” if those institutions (including

churches) are opposed to same-sex

marriage. What about Muslim and Or-

thodox Jewish congregations?

Mr. Barr is taking heat for describ-

ing our new secular morality as macro

in nature, with collective (state) action

to address social problems. Macromo-

rality is replacing Judeo-Christian mi-

cromorality that hinges on private

conduct and personal responsibility.

Demographic trends suggest that mac-

romorality is ascendant, though not

yet etched in stone. An August Wall

Street Journal/NBC News survey found

that just 30% of American adults youn-

ger than 39 consider religion or belief

in God to be very important. That 30%

compares with 52% of Americans be-

tween the ages of 39 and 54 and 67%

of those older than 54. Secularism that

trusts a soulless state to set moral

standards for the collective is dragging

us all into a classic Faustian bargain.

JIMMITCHELL

Williamsburg, Va.

Just as not all persons of faith are

radical theocrats, not all secularists

are extremists using “savage” tactics

to eradicate the role of religion in our

society. Many of us simply believe,

with all due respect to people of all re-

ligions, that our nation’s public policy

should be conducted without the intro-

duction of religious elements. The no-

tion that morality cannot be estab-

lished without faith, however rooted in

our history and, by extension, that all

social pathologies have spiritual roots,

is simply misinformed.

Our society can teach morality, eth-

ics, civility, self-reliance and humility

without reference to religion or any

particular faith. Children can be taught

to treat others as they themselves

would choose to be treated, to respect

others’ values and beliefs regardless of

how seemingly foreign, to be compas-

sionate, generous and respectful—all

of this with or without a belief in God

or spirituality. I know this to be true,

because I raised my children this way.

CYNTHIAR.CROSS

McLean, Va.

Remember that Barack Obama de-

livered the commencement address at

Notre Dame University on May 17,

2009, having the temerity, while doing

so, to wear a gown with “ Vita, Dul-

cedo, Spes ” (the school’s motto). Un-

seemly? Yes, unless the public official

is one of your own high priests, or

your memory is short or selective.

GERALDMONROE

Cleveland

Mr. Barr’s speech could as easily

have been given by the Rev. Martin Lu-

ther King Jr.; it was completely conso-

nant with his speeches. Can you imag-

ine Richard Painter calling Martin

Luther King a “vintage Goebbels,” or

Lawrence Wilkerson calling him

“Torquemada in a business suit”?

RUSSELLDODDS

Belton, S.C.

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Letters intended for publication should

be addressed to: The Editor, 1211 Avenue

of the Americas, New York, NY 10036,

or emailed to [email protected]. Please

include your city and state. All letters

are subject to editing, and unpublished

letters can be neither acknowledged nor

returned.

“I’m an obsessive compulsive

but not necessarily in that order.”

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

China Bullies Congressmen and Many Others

Taiwan deeply appreciates Rep.

Sean Patrick Maloney’s principled

stand after China refused to grant

members of his delegation visas sim-

ply because they were also planning

to visit Taiwan (“Beijing Tries To

Bully Congress,” op-ed, Oct. 14).

We value the bipartisan support in

the U.S. for Taiwan—it gives us

strength facing difficult times. In

fact, the robust, substantive relation-

ship between Taiwan and the U.S.

over the past 40 years has helped

Taiwan develop into the thriving de-

mocracy it is today.

It should also be clear by now that

China will try everything it can to

bully foreign individuals and coun-

tries into submission if they dare to

hold views that Beijing does not like.

China’s recent treatment of the NBA

reminds us again of such silencing.

No one should consider it normal for

an authoritarian regime to take the

right of free speech away from peo-

ple of another country. Yet that is

what Beijing does—either by threat,

or with money.

The world should see China for

what it is—an authoritarian regime

opposing freedom and tolerance for

diverse opinions. As we face daunt-

ing challenges from China, it is all

the more important that the world’s

democracies work together and

stand by Taiwan to resist censorship

and fight against bullying from an

authoritarian regime.

LILYHSU

Ambassador and director-general

Taipei Economic and Cultural Office

New York

Where Are the Adults Who

Should Police Teen Vaping?

In reading “Teens Voice New

Fears on Vaping” (Health & Well-

ness, Oct. 8), I was struck by the

blame placed on teens for the con-

tinuing vaping epidemic. To say that

teens ignored our advice is to dis-

credit the growth and development

that all teenagers should be af-

forded. It removes the blame from

the adults who are supposed to pro-

tect those teens. The American

Academy of Pediatrics first put out a

response to electronic nicotine-deliv-

ery systems in 2015 recommending

that vaping devices not be adver-

tised to children. As a society, we

didn’t act.

As the adults in teenagers’ lives,

we need to emphasize the dangers of

vaping with the same importance we

do cigarette use. We haven’t done

our diligence as a society. It is time

for us to take a stance at all levels

from national policy to pediatricians’

offices to each household.

BIANCAC.KAPOOR,M.D.

Philadelphia

Pepper ...

And Salt

Tax-Credit Abuses Shouldn’t Stop Subsidies

Your editorial “The Electric-Vehi-

cle Subsidy Racket” (Oct. 12) recom-

mends canceling the electric-vehicle

credit program in part because of

abuse of the credit by some tax fil-

ers. If enforcement of the electric-

vehicle tax credit is lax, then the

IRS must improve enforcement, as it

does with other abuses of the tax

system. Despite some abuse of the

system, the EV credit program pro-

vides tremendous energy-security

value at relatively modest cost. The

failure to diversify energy sources

for the American transportation sec-

tor risks severe economic and na-

tional security consequences. We

need to use every tool available to

encourage electric vehicles.

America consumes 20% of the

daily global oil supply, and despite

high domestic production, we still

import massive amounts of oil.

This extreme dependence on a vol-

atile commodity is why the Penta-

gon spends $81 billion every year—

risking military lives—to secure

the global oil supply in unstable

regions, and why thousands more

troops have been sent to Saudi

Arabia.

Our transportation system is 92%

dependent on oil, and cutting this

dependence drastically is critical for

our energy security. Despite recent

advances, the EV industry is still na-

scent and for as long as it competes

against mature technologies benefit-

ing from even greater government

subsidies, it will remain in its in-

fancy. Ending the tax credit now

would be pulling the plug at the

wrong time for the wrong reasons.

ADM.DENNISBLAIR,U.S.N.(RET.)

Securing America’s Future Energy

Washington

Mr. Blair is a former director of

national intelligence and former

commander in chief, U.S. Pacific

Command.

Facebook and Free Speech

M

ark Zuckerberg offered a stalwart de-
fense of liberal values on free speech
last week, and it’s a sign of our illib-
eral times that progressives
were his biggest critics. A Joe
Biden spokesman accused the
Facebook CEO of using “the
Constitution as a shield for his
company’s bottom line,” and
pundits on Twitter raged at
his refusal to censor ads for
Donald Trump.
Mr. Zuckerberg’s offense was standing up
for John Mill’s liberal marketplace of ideas that
liberals used to stand for. At Georgetown Uni-
versity and in our pages Thursday, he commit-
ted Facebook to uphold a wide definition of free
expression. This is good news with major impli-
cations for how information is distributed in the
21st century if Facebook honors this pledge.
iii
When Facebook and other social-media sites
took off in the 2000s, an elite consensus held
that freewheeling debate advanced democratic
government and liberal social causes. Then
came the 2016 election. Many liberals saw Mr.
Trump’s victory as a democratic malfunction
and blamed Facebook, though they had previ-
ously lionized the platform for its role spread-
ing candidate Barack Obama’s message.
The pressure on the platform to referee
America’s political back-and-forth has in-
creased with polarization. Mr. Zuckerberg’s
comments seemed aimed at reminding the po-
litical left that it suffered most from censorship
amid the polarizing episodes in the 20th cen-
tury, citing the World War I-era prosecution of
socialist Eugene Debs.
Today, conservatives are more likely to per-
ceive that their views are suppressed on social
media, and Republican Members of Congress
have made it a top issue. A recent controversy
of note was Facebook’s temporary suppression
of a video produced by the pro-life group Live
Action.
Facebook is a private company that isn’t
obliged to follow a First Amendment standard.
The company understandably doesn’t want its
platform to resemble Gab or 8chan or PornHub,
where obscene or violent content festers, as
that would degrade the user experience. Face-
book therefore regulates the outside boundaries
of expression on its platform, but Mr. Zucker-
berg says he doesn’t want the definition of im-
permissible speech to expand beyond “what is
absolutely necessary.”
The challenge is to devise and enforce poli-
cies that are as viewpoint-neutral as possible.
Mr. Zuckerberg says in particular that he
doesn’t want to police political advertising by
candidates, since that would mean trying to ref-
eree America’s raucous election debates. Inter-

vention would inevitably lead to claims of polit-

ical bias. Better to let candidates and the media

brawl over competing claims as they do in tradi-

tional media.

Facebook has a handbook

for “community standards”

that are publicly available, and

Mr. Zuckerberg restated his

commitment to an “oversight

board,” independent of Face-

book management, which will

have a final say on content de-

cisions. The board will have an unwieldy 40

members serving three-year terms, and the

company aims to announce the first members

this year. It remains to be seen if the liberal hot-

house that is Silicon Valley harasses conserva-

tives on the board.

Google created an artificial-intelligence eth-

ics board but it was dissolved in April after em-

ployees launched a character-assassination

campaign against member Kay Coles James, the

African-American president of the conservative

Heritage Foundation. Mr. Zuckerberg told us in

an interview that he was troubled by what hap-

pened at Google and that Facebook handles em-

ployee dissent differently.

A fair criticism of Mr. Zuckerberg’s remarks

is that he posited too tidy a relationship be-

tween free speech and social “progress.” As with

markets, free speech can be a process of creative

destruction. It is essential for democratic legiti-

macy but the process can be unforgiving and

winners aren’t predetermined. Sometimes reac-

tionary views win the day.

Nonetheless, it’s remarkable that liberals are

taking umbrage at a conventional statement of

free-speech values they would have embraced

a decade ago. California Senator Kamala Harris

tried to stand out at last week’s presidential de-

bate by taunting Elizabeth Warren to agree that

Twitter should suspend Donald Trump’s ac-

count. Ms. Warren ducked that issue but she had

spent the previous week demanding that Face-

book censor Mr. Trump’s political ads.

Because they control the commanding

heights of culture and are a supermajority in the

cities where social-media companies are based,

progressives seem to think they can impose a

new, enlightened consensus by controlling po-

litical speech. They also long for the days when

they dominated American politics.

But high-handed social-media censorship

would only fracture politics further. Mr. Zucker-

berg is making what seems to be a good-faith

attempt to support free speech while defending

Facebook’s business model, and the company

must now deliver on his vision. With even the

U.S. Supreme Court under attack from the left,

creating a “Facebook Supreme Court” for free

speech that commands public confidence will

be no easy task.

Zuckerberg says

progressives shouldn’t

abandon liberal values.

Progressives object.

Cuomo’s Carbon Contradiction

N

ew York Governor Andrew Cuomo has a
habit of bullying others to cover for and
fix his policy blunders. In another dis-
play of political grace, Mr.
Cuomo has ordered the utility
National Grid to resume natu-
ral-gas hookups that were sus-
pended after his senseless
pipeline veto this spring.
Mr. Cuomo wants to make
New York ground zero in the left’s plan to
purge fossil fuels. First he banned shale frack-
ing in southern New York despite its huge po-
tential to boost local economies. Then he
blocked a natural-gas pipeline from Pennsylva-
nia that would have reduced energy bills and
reliance on heating oil.
As a coup de grâce, in May he vetoed another
pipeline to bring natural gas to Long Island from
New Jersey. National Grid, which provides natu-
ral gas on Long Island, responded rationally by
imposing a moratorium on natural-gas hookups
to prevent supply disruptions when demand
spikes in the winter.
This essentially stranded tens of thousands
of folks waiting for gas hookups, including more
than a thousand who had deactivated their ser-
vice after moving or renovating. Apparently Mr.
Cuomo didn’t understand that the result of his
pipeline blockade was to force residents to use
more expensive and less-efficient electric appli-
ances for space and water heating.

After folks on Long Island protested—one

homeless shelter estimated that electrification

would cost an additional $200,000—Mr. Cuomo

last week ordered National

Grid to reconnect over a thou-

sand customers. He also di-

rected state regulators to in-

vestigate National Grid’s

decision to disrupt natural gas

service and threatened to

yank its monopoly.

National Grid now says it plans to truck in com-

pressed natural gas to meet peak demand. Exactly

how will this reduce CO2 emissions? The utility

won’t be able to guarantee uninterrupted service

for the tens of thousands of customers who want

to switch to natural gas from heating oil, which

emits 38% more CO2. About a quarter of New York

households rely on heating oil.

According to the Energy Information Admin-

istration, the average household that uses natu-

ral gas for heating this winter will spend $

compared to $1,501 for heating oil and $1,162 for

electricity. A household that uses natural gas for

space and water heating instead of electricity

will save about $2,400 per year.

Consider this another parable of how the po-

litical campaign to ban fossil fuels is detached

from energy and economic reality. And when re-

ality bites and consumers suffer, politicians like

Mr. Cuomo blame someone else to deflect from

their own policy mistakes.

After blocking pipelines,

he bullies a firm to deploy

natural gas this winter.

Legalizing Discrimination

I

n 1998 voters in the Evergreen State
passed the Washington State Civil Rights
Initiative. Modeled after a similar mea-
sure that had passed in California, it outlawed
racial preferences in public employment, con-
tracting and college admissions and passed
with 58% of the vote. Now the people of Wash-
ington will vote on a new measure designed
to roll back the old ban.
It’s been a tumultuous path to the ballot.
On the last night of its 2019 session, the Dem-
ocratic-controlled Legislature passed Initia-
tive 1000. This overturned the ban on prefer-
ential treatment voted in 20 years ago.
Then something interesting happened.
The state’s Asian-American community—led
by Washington Asians for Equality—rejected
the 11th-hour effort to sneak racial prefer-
ences back into their state, and they ob-
tained enough signatures on a petition to
force the issue onto the November ballot.
The ballot measure is called Referendum 88
and codifies the Legislature’s bill. If a major-
ity votes no on the referendum, the attempt

to restore racial preferences fails.

Those supporting Referendum 88 adopt the

defense that Harvard’s admissions department

has been giving: Yes, we want to discriminate,

but it’s not “preferential treatment” because

race or gender or sexual orientation isn’t the

“sole qualifying factor.”

Opponents know better how this really

works in practice. They also know the law in-

cludes a new commission on “diversity, equity

and inclusion,” appointed by the Governor,

that would enforce compliance by state agen-

cies with these goals. You can guess how those

appointees would implement these highly po-

litical commands.

We’d all be spared this back and forth on

racial preferences if the Supreme Court would

come down definitively against them instead

of giving hazy guidelines. Meantime, the peo-

ple of Washington have an opportunity to re-

inforce America’s constitutional guarantee

against government prejudice based on skin

color. Diversity and inclusion have been ad-

vancing in the state under current law.

REVIEW & OUTLOOK

OPINION