My apologies. I posted without noticing that we’re not talking about the same person anymore. And I didn’t see the stuff about death threats. Of course that’s despicable. And I have nothing but contempt for people like Donohue.
Fair enough.
I checked out the website of the Catholic News Service, and this whole mess was mentioned as a “news brief” article. That means that it could be included in many diocesan Catholic newspapers mailed to millions of Catholic households around the country.
The CNS is a division of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, though it is self-sustaining and editorially independent. It provides a tremendous amount of content to those diocese level newspapers.
That, and the fact that this was covered by mainstream media and not just blogs, means that many lay Catholics are going to be left with the (accurate) impression that Edwards hired bloggers who were rabidly anti-Catholic, and profanely so.
IYHO. Which AFAICT doesn’t have any backing. (Feel free to provide some if you’ve got it.)
There are posters here who refer to God as a ‘bearded sky pixie’ and stuff like that. Marcotte talks about religion in general with about that level of respect. And she’s vocal about what she regards as specific abuses by specific religious groups.
How that adds up to being ‘anti-Catholic’ in the sense of being prejudiced against a particular group, I don’t understand. Feel free to explain that one to me. Or provide cites that demonstrate her prejudice against Catholics in particular.
No prob. It seemed so out of character for you, that I should have figured it was some sort of confusion like this.
Wonder if Donohue jumps on evangelical conservatives for being anti-Catholic, or whether he just reserves that treatment for lefties?
Dumb question, I know.
And again, though I think Donohue can be a problem, I hardly think he is the only one.
Also, I think a distinction needs to be drawn between people who object to Catholicism because they figure that it is theologically incorrect, and those who are so hostile to it that they make comments about Mary and the Holy Spirit’s semen and are then surprised that people are offended.
Also, it goes without saying that those who associate with David Duke need to be condemned, and even if the mainstream media misses the ball on that, I won’t hesitate to do it.
OK, so “the Roman church is a false church and it teaches a false gospel” is mere theological disagreement, and is not bigotry. No problem.
Not sure that applies to anyone, since I’m sure Marcotte wasn’t surprised that anyone was offended.
But I’m confused about a couple of things here:
-
What do comments about Mary and the Holy Spirit’s semen have to do with Roman Catholicism specifically? Last time I checked, most mainstream Protestant denominations recite one of the classical creeds (Apostles’, Nicene) from time to time, both of which have language to the effect of Christ being conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary.
-
How come graphically skewering what one views as a religion’s mythology is, IYHO, bigotry, where ‘theological’ statements of the type I’ve quoted above aren’t?
Or we could do analogies. Something like 40% of Americans believe the Biblical creation story is factual. So if I simply point out that I think it’s a crock as science, history, or what have you, that’s just theological disagreement, but if I add ridicule of creationist ideas, I’m an anti-creationist (or anti-inerrantist, or anti-fundie) bigot?
I think you were on to something with the last part. Not that we have to be so firm in definitions, mind, but we have to be realistic in the effects our actions and rhetoric may have. And the fact is that ridiculing a belief may win you popularity with some people, but it may lose you some other votes later on from people who might have been inclined to vote for you for other reasons.
I think in politics disagreement is fine while ridicule isn’t. The first is a natural part of the political process, the latter an artificiality of rhetoric that demonstrates a lack of respect toward voters.
Hell, I don’t believe in creationism, and I’ll tell anyone who asks me that I don’t. Yet if I ever run for office, I might get some of those creationists to vote for me because of some of my other positions. I’ll welcome every vote that comes my way, because the object in the end is to win.
John Edwards isn’t going to win, and this episode is one small reason why.
I will probably vote Democratic unless the candidate is Edwards. His campaign finance manager is Fred Baron. Fred Baron has made billion by manufacturing false asbestos claims and driving our manufacturing industry into bankruptcy. If he gets rid of his campaign finance manager, I might vote for him but right now, he is owned by special interests.
So is your answer that ridicule does or doesn’t equate to bigotry? I see a lot of words, but I don’t see a response.
And I haven’t seen responses from you. Only dismissals.
Why don’t you think about the real impact this will have on voters (not bloggers), especially primary ones, and then get back to me.
I’m going to vote for him. He’s one of the most intelligent people I’ve ever heard speak. AND he put a hurtin’ on lot of money grubbing companies that screwed people over. I like that !
Serendipitously, the Atlanta Journal chatted with one of these creatures in today’s paper-- a South Carolina voter named Jim Fleming, who is a deacon emeritus at the First Baptist Church in Lancaster, SC. Since South Carolina hosts the second primary, the AJC is trying to get a read on how South Carolinians view the various candidates. (The article is not online, unfortunately.)
Here’s what Fleming said about Mitt Romney:
And Edwards? From the article:
That’s how Edwards plays in these parts. If the electoral goal for Democrats is to peel away a couple of Southern states, Edwards is the man for the job.
This is why I think Edwards, particularly if he is pitted against a Romney or a Giuliani, has a strong chance of carrying the day. Fundamentalists are going to hesitate before voting for a Mormon like Romney, or a New Yorker with liberal social views like Giuliani. And not just in the South. This mode of thinking could also tip the balance in such purple states as Ohio and Missouri.
I look at this as well, that the next election will be won by the candidate who can compete on the other guy’s turf. And I think Giuliani has a real shot there, as well as Romney to a lesser degree.
Funny, our manufacturing industries seem to be fine, overall.
You certainly have an interesting definition of ‘owned by special interests.’
I think Giuliani is going to crash and burn when organizations like Gallup and Zogby start doing straw polls in NY and find that a whole lotta New Yorkers despise the guy.
Blogger Amanda Marcotte speaks out on the manufactured “controversy”: Why I Had to Quit the John Edwards Campaign.
Melissa McEwan has a similar piece here. It’s a shame that Melissa got caught up in all of this, since she never even said anything all that offensive. That Donohue and the right-wing noise machine went on for her after Amanda resigned proves that, for them, this was never about what they actually wrote. Reasonable people can certainly find offense in their words (or in Amanda’s, anyway), but for the people flogging this story, it was all about sticking it to Edwards.
I do think Amanda would come off better by taking more ownership of what she said, rather than hiding behind non-apology apologies and claims that it was “satirical”. The subject (misinformation being given out in Catholic marriage classes) made her angry, and she said what she said. She could point out that many of her critics have said equally harsh things about the faiths of other Americans. But in the end, it wasn’t about what they said, as Donohue proved by going after McEwan.
Of what?
None. This will have been long forgotten by then. And if someone tries to bring it up, it’ll barely make sense to non-Freepers.
OK, here’s a Strategic Vision poll from Iowa, taken Feb. 16-18 - last Friday through Sunday.
Link and quote to/from MyDD, for the January comparison numbers. (Direct link to SV.) As you can see, the effect of the Marcotte-McEwan ‘scandal’ on primary voters in Iowa was so immeasurable that the SV poll was unable to measure it. 
For what it’s worth (probably nothing), I’m Catholic and I support Edwards in anything he chooses to do. I am not a member of the intelligentisia nor a reader of this massive thread. I merely wish to provide my input.