The Catholic League's Bill Donohue hits Newsweek for its downplaying the controversy. Here's Donohue's statement:
“Newsweek’s Jonathan Darman was disingenuous when he said that two employees for Edwards came under fire because they ‘criticized Roman Catholic and religious conservatives on their personal blogs.’ It is not criticism of Catholicism when someone makes a comment about the Virgin Mary being injected with semen by the Lord. Nor is it criticism when religious conservatives are called motherf---ers. It is hate speech. And these are only two of their incredibly vulgar assaults. To read what they actually said, in uncensored form, click here.
“Newsweek reeks of a double standard. In its December 11, 2006 edition, it said that Michael Richards had gotten himself in trouble for his ‘racist rant,’ and in the same article it recalled Mel Gibson’s ‘anti-Semitic remarks.’ On February 5, 2007, it said that Isaiah Washington got himself into hot water for making a ‘homophobic comment.’ In other words, when someone makes a racist, anti-Semitic or anti-gay remark, Newsweek labels it as such. But when obscene comments are made about the Mother of God or religious conservatives, it counts as mere criticism.
“As I said last week, we will use the John Edwards matter as a springboard to a national discussion on the duplicity that colors the entire conversation about bigotry in America. Newsweek has now made its own contribution to this issue.”
Exactly. There is a double standard.
UPDATE: Let me add a couple of things. Many on the left can't see what the big deal is, and say that Christians who are offended by this wouldn't have voted for Edwards anyway. Really? My "Kingfish" gibes aside, I was interested in what he had to say about the economy, and populism. But now, forget it. I doubt very much that John Edwards is a bigoted man, but by retaining Marcotte and McEwan, who are in my view anti-Christian bigots, he has shown that he will tolerate it. What if a candidate had retained in high-profile positions a pair of bloggers who spoke so disgustingly about the most sacred mysteries in Judaism? Would the candidate have expected Jews to just get over it? Would the news media have dropped it? Would sympathetic bloggers have dismissed the presence of noxious anti-Semites on the campaign staff of a presidential candidate as something only thin-skinned Jews should be concerned with? Of course not.
John Edwards is right -- there really are two Americas, and in his America, it's not such a big deal to use the filthiest, most blasphemous language, as long as your targets are traditional Christians. And Democrats wonder why they have trouble getting many people of faith to listen to them.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
If atheism is a religion then not believing in the tooth fairy is a religion, not believing pink unicorns inhabit the dark side of the moon is a religion and not believing that black is white is a religion. Absurd. You stated this better than I ever could. Thank you.
Salvage, We are ourselves natural beings, so there is no way anything supernatural -- or the absence thereof -- could be evident to us in a rational way. If we believe in God or if we disbelieve in God, we do so on faith. If we just don't know if there is or isn't a God, but don't have faith one way or the other, then we are agnostic. Geeze, Louise.....
James, ...the leftist notion that human beings and their cultures are purely the products of chance, and that the aforementioned chance not only yielded life, but a kind of life in which all humans and all human cultures are "equal" according to the scientific yardstick that is the only criterion for judgement that such a rationalist conception can allow itself in good faith (ahem). Pun noted and appreciated. Ahem. :) There are some valid criticisms in there, but I'm compelled to point out some constrictions in your presentation. 1) Chance: this is the non-scientist's flawed attempt to understand the observation that all things are possible in a universe this large; that if we look at ourselves at a small enough level, we are faced with a similar infinitude; and the only way to make sense of it without resorting to non-rational explanations (like deities and miracles) is to recognize that infinitude and say, with all humility, that we simply don't know. Take the theory of evolution as an example: it is not based on chance, but on what I like to term the shotgun blast approach: life aims in a general direction of improvement (survival), and it maximizes its spread (the shotgun blast) in order to have the "chance" that some of the pellets will hit their target. Think of the trial and error method of finding the solution to a problem. Is it chance that the person keeps trying until sie finds a solution? 2) Equality: this is a non-scientific, human/political/ego-based imposition on observable facts: some cultural groups are more successful than others. Period. Why else do we see so many failed attempts to duplicate the success of others? Rhetorical: because those making the failed attempts are not equal to those who succeeded. Science does not impose value judgments on its observations; people do that, with people motivations and people agendas. With due respect, I find it disingenuous at best and completely dishonest at worst to blame science for that. I am a liberal, for wont of a better term. I am a freethinker, in that there is no party or platform that can claim my allegiance or support in total. I never pull the big lever, not even in those rare instances that I'm actually intending to vote for everyone in one party. As a group, liberals are just as prone to false conclusions and wishful thinking as any other group. I urge you to join me in attacking the ideas without the tar-baby effect of lumping them into group labels. The best debates I've ever had or witnessed started with the parties forgetting about labels. :)
Franklin, On Chance: What I mean is that, in a purely rationalistic world-view, it cannot be asserted that there is any design at work that produced the world as it is. Most people -- religious or secular -- assume that human lives are in one way or another of equal worth. That said, there is no rational or scientific reason for making that assumption. Such an assumption is, as you put it, "a human imposition on observable facts." My argument is that such an imposition in secular terms has no more rational foundation than the same imposition made in religious terms. The problem is that many people whose faith is expressed in "secular" terms attempt to use scientific reason as a means to undermine the same sort of imposition when made on "religious" grounds -- which is simply not a tenable move. On Equality: Suppose that future science shows -- as it very well may -- that there are inherent differences between the two sexes or among the different races, such that any rational basis for sexual or racial equality is undermined. How then would secular leftists maintain their ideology without recourse the the bad faith (ahem) of faith in an ideal of equality which, like the idea of God, has no rational foundation? Most scientific findings in the past two hundred years or so have been more expedient as sticks with which "the left" can beat "the right" than the other way round. But that may not always be so, and I think it behoves some on the left not to be so very hasty in abandoning a fideistic grounding for their ethical beliefs -- they might need it someday (soon). Thanks for the conversation.
James, On Chance: while we may not see eye-to-eye on the details, I can definitely stand with you on your final statement: people often attempt objective justification in the manner you describe. I agree that we need to be vigilant when that happens, and reiterate the divide between rational analysis and our leap of faith (and I have no doubt that you and I understand what that means), that science must stop short with an "I don't know" in matters of the spirit. On Equality: science has already declared significant differences amongst identifiable subgroups amongst humans. I wonder if you can agree with this different angle: there is no rational basis for requiring different statuses for people based on the inequality of both individual and group characteristics. We can and should have a rational meritocracy (in the general sense) wherein we do not expect a paraplegic to be a professional football player, a deaf person to be a polyglot or musician, a blind person to be a sports referee, or any other irrational pairing of ability and facility. A rational society will, however, draw a very strong line between ability and status. As an example, I cite the civil rights movement in the US, ability in that case being defined as socio-economic. One of the ills of human civilization (it having been, and may still be in limited ways, a strength) is the notion of aristocracy. We should, of course, refrain from going to an opposite extreme (equality as a given, no proof necessary), but that leaves us to determine what the rational middle ground needs to be. Thank you, sir. P.S. I experience personal despair, having little hope that ethics will ever become a primary concern in our society. I base that on both a reading of history and personal participation in local politics, up to but just short of being a candidate myself. :(
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.