Edwards Was Right, Sort Of Print E-mail
By Jesse Lava
Feb. 09, 07 14:06
Tags: Catholic, Politics,

So John Edwards has refused to fire two bloggers who, prior to writing for his website, made crude and offensive comments about Catholics and Catholic beliefs.  He's right -- sort of.

 

The bloggers in question are Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwen.  Right-wing blowhard Bill Donohue ripped into them after finding quotes such as the following in their history:

 

“The Catholic church is not about to let something like compassion for girls get in the way of using the state as an instrument to force women to bear more tithing Catholics.”

 

“The Pope’s gotta tell women who give birth to stillborns that their babies are cast into Satan’s maw.”

 

“What if Mary had taken Plan B after the Lord filled her with his hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit?... “You’d have to justify your misogyny with another ancient mythology.”

 

[Bush's supporters are his] "wingnut Christofacsist base."

 

These comments are pure trash.  They're not political arguments; they're condemnations of people who hold certain religious beliefs.  They're not funny; they're sardonic; they're mean; they're contemptuous.  And calling out Marcotte and McEwen is entirely appropriate.

 

The problem is that the guy doing the calling out -- Bill Donohue -- is not an objective political observer who merely wants to stop anti-Catholic bigotry.  He is a mean, spiteful man with a political axe to grind.

 

His most famous spewing of bile appeared on MSNBC's Scarborough Country:

 

Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews who hate Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular. It's not a secret, OK? And I'm not afraid to say it. ... Hollywood likes anal sex. They like to see the public square without nativity scenes. I like families. I like children. They like abortions.

 

As Media Matters details thoroughly, there's more:

 

“I'm saying if a Catholic votes for Kerry because they support him on abortion rights, that is to cooperate in evil.”

 

“Name for me a book publishing company in this country, particularly in New York, which would allow you to publish a book which would tell the truth about the gay death style.”

 

“[Addressing former Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL)]: “Most 15-year-old teenage boys wouldn't allow themselves to be molested. So why did you?”

 

And so on.  Donohue also seems to take a sick pleasure in ruining people who happen to be political opponents.  In 2004, he thoroughly distorted the views and background of Mara Vanderslice, who was John Kerry's religious outreach director at the time -- and routinely brags about it despite having been discredited.

 

Meanwhile, Donohue usually fails to call out conservatives for anti-Catholic bigotry -- again well documented by Media Matters -- and thus should have little-to-no credibility as a purveyor of anything besides a right-wing political agenda.

 

Edwards was right to resist pressure from this particular source.  Kowtowing to the likes of Bill Donohue is a never-ending exercise in futility.  He's the Energizer bunny of bile, and nothing will defang him except for standing up to him.

 

That said, we progressives would be foolish to simply accept disturbing comments such as those that Marcotte and McEwan seem to make a regular part of their blogging routine.  If their slimy remarks had been directed at African-Americans, gays, Muslims, or other minority groups, progressives would be (rightly) up in arms.  For both moral and strategic reasons, the progressive coalition should welcome -- enthusiastically -- a diversity of religious views.

 

Thus, Edwards didn't go far enough when he said that the two bloggers "have both assured me that it was never their intention to malign anyone's faith, and I take them at their word."  Anyone who can read and casts their judgments accordingly should understand that maligning people's faith was precisely what Marcotte and McEwan aimed to do.  Just tell it like it is: the bloggers said offensive things, there was nothing accidental about it, they both should grow up, and Bill Donohue still isn't worth listening to.

 

Now there are legitimate questions out there about how we in the blog world should best spend our precious (if metaphorical) ink.  Should we be attacking the likes of Bill Donohue, or assailing a couple of bloggers who had no prominence before this flap began?  I'm inclined to say that the former is more important, all things considered, given the volume of Donohue's bullhorn.  We live in a target-rich environment, and message discipline has its place.  But the twin goals of cultivating religious respect and building a wide progressive coalition are important endeavors.  They matter.  And we ignore them at our peril.


LIST OF COMMENTS

1/12. In essence...
Written by Jesse  | Feb. 09, 07 13:08
Priorities = good; Donohue = mean; apologetics for inexcusable rhetoric = bad

2/12. Well said
Written by ldsguy  | Feb. 09, 07 18:59
Well said, and I agree with Tom Donnelly's recent column on this matter as well. I don't know if Edwards should have kept these bloggers or not; I could make good arguments either way. But we should call religious bigotry just that whenever it appears, whether it's from the right or the left. The non-apology apology by the two bloggers, and Edwards' official statement, didn't go far enough in denouncing the vileness of the statements that at least one of the bloggers made.

3/12. I disagree - kinda.
Written by mistformsquirrel  | Feb. 10, 07 02:14
I must appologize - this went longer than I expected.  But I guess it was on my heart to say.

--

I disagree that *all* those comments are wrong.

- In particular - about Bush and his Christofascist base.

People don't want to hear it - but it's true.  The Right coined the term "islamofascist" to denote taliban-like people who are muslim, who wish to rule a nation via Islamic law.

Is it not fair then, to say that those on the far right, who want nothing more than to institute Christianity as the law of  the land, are "Christofascists"?  It's honest truth there.  This is comming from a person who does most assuredly believe.

It *is* a condemnation - but that particular statement rings true.

The others... not so much.  I won't deny - what they said was... well wrong.  Basically.  I don't think he should be firing them definitely though - in the long term, they may well come to understand that not all religious folk are insane.  But, we must understand, the atheist worldview is almost always colored by the most extreme elements of religion.

Often, a person *becomes* an atheist because *of* those extreme elements.  The fastest way to drive someone from the body of Christ - is by trying to force vile and disgusting beliefs down their throat.  Some will accept it wholely - some won't know any better - and some, some will outright reject it.  Of those who reject - there are those who still believe, but cannot believe what they are being told.  And there are those who react with contempt and anger.

The second reaction *is* natural - what do you do when someone slaps you?  A good Christian, and really a good person of most religions - will try not to get involved.  However, the natural human reaction is to fight back, or at least be angry and hurl insults.

So what happens when you get a religious slap in the face?

Uh huh.  If you remain secure in your belief - hopefully, you'll be able to adhere to the real principles of Christ, despite the offensiveness of your introduction.

If you aren't... if you've been shaken too badly by the the false prophet's message (and it is truely hard not to be) - then it is not at all difficult for a person to become not just an atheist - but outright hostile to religion.  Some will become especially fixated on the religion they felt booted from, while others just loathe religion in general.

Some of these can be helped however.  An angry man can be calmed.  A hurt can be healed.  

In the secular world - Edwards should not fire them because they were not done for his campaign.  It is a part of their prior work, and many people have changed tracts since starting a new job - in the secular world - it just wouldn't be right.  (It'd be like firing someone after talking to someone's previous boss over dinner and finding out they'd been lazy, or loud, or rude - you're not supposed to even do that legally - though I grant you, it's been done)

It doesn't excuse their behavior mind you - it does bear close watching.  But the truth is, often, an angry atheist who spouts such nonsense, has been wronged by someone - a wolf in sheeps clothing if you will - in the church.  Be they a congregant, priest, deacon, pastor or reverand - *someone* has stung them in their very soul.  It's too easy to look on someone of this nature with anger, or with hate, or with pride, or indignation.

Look at them with remorse, with sadness because of the grievous injuries done them that they cannot see.  Even those brought up with a hateful anti-religion bent, are brought up with spiritual wounds.

Regardless of *how* they became what they are - it is up to us to do better.  To show them that people of faith are respectable and good and kind, and indeed that Jesus does love them despite anything they may have said or done before.  That life can start anew.

As for Donahue... the same goes for him, though I dislike him.  He is a hypocrit and a liar of the greatest capacity - and far worse than someone who has been angered by the church and felt the need to fight back.  He is the very sort that hurts these people.  HE is the one who CREATES such - for it is by his falseness that the scripture, meant to bring healing and guidance, becomes a sword to cut the innocent, the weak, the sick and the oppressed.  Even such can be saved - but they are much more difficult to convince - for they have sinned in pride, in false prophecy, and indeed in self delusion - believing themselves covered in the grace of God even as they do evil in His name.

Do not hate those who do not understand, or are too sore to think rationally.  Save your righteous anger for those who have done the cutting.  The Donahues, the Robertsons, the Dobsons, the Haggards, those who claim righteousness, who look down upon others as insects - who cast their piety as somehow greater than that of their fellow believers - these are them that we must face, and these are them we must defeat with spirit and righteousness.

--

4/12. Shorter JL
Written by Super Fly  | Feb. 10, 07 07:20
"My good friend Vanderslice was unfairly smeared by Donohue, but his characterization of Marcotte's words is exactly correct."

5/12. Sponge
Written by Sponge Phillips  | Feb. 10, 07 08:58
I agree.  These comments were inexcusable.  Far worse than the hundreds of thousands these organized religions have killed over the centuries.

6/12. Come on, Sponge
Written by Trapper Joe  | Feb. 10, 07 22:00
Straw man, much?  Bad things have done in the name of religion; therefore there's something wrong with calling out religious bigotry?  Get off your high horse.

7/12. Wrong move John
Written by zoso553  | Feb. 11, 07 15:06
I think Edwards is a guy that means well, and I'm positive that he has nothing against Catholics. However, what these bloggers said (especially about the Virgin Mary) is disgusting. I'm all for freedom of speech but with that comes freedom of consequence. This type of hatred shouldn't be tolerated on any side of the isle, no matter who it is directed too. These bloggers were clearly writing against the Christian (and more particularly) Catholic community, and I'm sorry that John Edwards has yet to hold them accountable.

8/12. Sponge
Written by Sponge Phillips  | Feb. 13, 07 14:20
Trapper Joe, I do not know what you are talking about.  I *agree* with the comments made above. *And* I want to burn heretics.  What is so wrong with that?

If you don't believe in God, you should be destroyed.  That's how it always has been, and that is how I pray every night it continues to be.

Dear Jesus, thank you for wars and pestilence.  So many of the right people wind up dead from them.

9/12. Repeat
Written by Trapper Joe  | Feb. 13, 07 17:13
See above comment.  I'm sure you're a smart guy; interested in actual dialogue or just impenetrable, sarcastic broadsides?

10/12. Interesting Article, Jesse
Written by Jude NAgurney Camwel  | Feb. 16, 07 14:12
I thought I'd let you know that the members of the John Edwards blog have been discussing the matter as well. I had made the same comment about Mara Vanderslice, and I remember well when Mr. Donohue so destructively, unfairly, and recklessly played with her public reputation.  While Mara and Amanda Marcotte have obviously spoken differently on the issues, I think it's important to remember that either one of them could be any one of us. Hiding behind a religious identity will never cover up the fact that Mr. Donohue is attempting to destroy good people in the name of my own Catholic faith.  It makes me ashamed and, I'll admit, just a bit afraid. We need to expose him for what he's doing. He may be a very good man, but I can't see the goodness in him while he's acting in a manner that is not in keeping with a my idea of someone with Christian sensibilities should act.  

11/12. hypocritical Christians
Written by Ify  | Feb. 16, 07 16:53

You know what. IAM SICK OF THE SECOND MOST WOMAN HATING RELIGION IN THE WORLD BITCHING AT AMANDA. IF YOU CAN'T GODDAMN TAKE IT, DON'T GODDAMN DISH IT.

YOU KNOW WHAT JESSE. GO READY NANCY DELEIGH MOSS. GO READ THE WOMAN HATING PB WILSON. READ THE DEATH OF AN EMPIRE. READ ALAN THE ASS WHO WORKS WITH ACLJ. I CAN SHOW YOU PLACES IN THESE BOOKS WERE "CHRISTIANS" BLAME WOMEN FOR THE EFFECTS OF THE SERIAL RAPES OF PARENTS, WHERE "CHRISTIANS" PRAISE SOCIETIES RIFE WITH PEDOPHILA AND RAPE (THEY CALL IT FORCED MARRIAGE) BECAUSE THEY HAVE A HIGH BIRTH RATE, WERE "CHRISTIANS" DEFEND MEN WHO BEAT WOMEN BY SAYING THAT THE WOMEN SHOULD STAY WITH THE DIRTY SWINE WHO ARE BEATING THEM.

IF YOU TALK TO THE WOMEN IN THE CHURCH WHO HAVE BEEN BEATEN ALL OF THEM LEFT THEIR BEATING MEN. SO WHY ARE CHRISTIAN WOMEN WRITING ABOUT HOW "SELFISH" WOMEN ARE BECAUSE THEY LEAVE. OH SHUT UP. CHRISTIANITY NEEDS A BITCHSLAP. AND AMANDA GAVE YOU ONE. AND YOU ARE REELING. GOOD. YOU AND YOUR SILLY GOD NEED MORE BITCHSLAPS. UNTIL YOU AND YOUR SILLY GOD START DEFENDING WOMEN AS YOUR LAZY ASSES ARE SUPPOSE TO, THEY MAY MORE AMANDA'S RISE. SILLY BASTARD.

MAYBE WE NEED TO START HOLDING CHRISTIANS ACCOUNTABLE FOR WHAT THEY WRITE ABOUT WOMEN PUBLICLY. SO WHEN CHRISTIANS NITPICK OVER ONE YOUNG WOMAN WHO DOES NOT TOLERATE CHRISTIAN WOMAN HATING, WE CAN NITPICK OVER CHRISTIAN LITERATURE. I THINK WE WILL FIND THAT OF SINNERS, CHRISTIANS ARE CHIEF, WHEN IT COMES TO SO CALLED "ANTI" LITERATURE.


12/12. Tired of kowtowing to people who abuse religion for political purposes
Written by expatjourno  | Feb. 21, 07 09:40
When you people, who are so concerned that Democrats and liberals don't show religious people enough respect, actually stand up and be counted and forcefully oppose the abuse of religion and the spreading of hatred and bigotry and divisiveness in the name of Jesus, then and only then will you get my respect.

You have let the religious right wing dominate headlines, political fundraising It is long, long, LONG past time for Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson and James Dobson, et al. to be excoriated for their corrupt, cynical practices. So you complain about atheistic bloggers whose criticism of the Dobsonite hate-mongers is intemperate?

It is because you have failed to do the job yourselves. And after 25 years of sitting on your hands, passively watching Jerry Falwell put Ronald Reagan in the White House, maybe the first thing you should do is get to work, rather than complain about people who have had to step in while you slept and let the country be stolen.

Feh.

Last Updated ( Feb. 09, 07 14:29 )
 
< Prev   Next >