Denis Leary Trashes Virgin Mary and Catholic Church in Comedy Central Special

The Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights has put Worcester homey Denis Leary on its Naughty List and the religious group is demanding that Comedy Central ax future showings of his “vile special” “Denis Leary’s Merry F#%$in’ Christmas.”

“Hate speech dressed in humorous garb is still hate speech,” said Catholic League president Bill Donohue. “Leary is obviously bedeviled by some disorder but nothing excuses this crap.”

In the Yuletide yukfest, the “Rescue Me” star has a skit about lesbian nuns and a song by “Our Lady of Perpetual Suffering Church Choir” about a hooker. But what really has the Catholic League ready to launch a holy war is Denis’ take on the origins of Christmas.

“Merry Christmas,” says Denis. “Tonight we celebrate the birth of the baby Jesus, whose mom, Mary, just happens to be a virgin — even after she apparently gave birth to Jesus.At least that is what the Catholic Church would have you believe.

“Tom Cruise is taking a lot of (bleep) for belonging to a religion, Scientology, that believes aliens came to this planet 75 million years ago. That is nothing. I was raised Catholic. We believe Mary was a virgin and Jesus ended up walking on water, creating a bottomless jug of wine and rising from the dead.”

Leary then gives his trenchant take on the virgin birth which, trust us, did not jingle the Catholics’ bells!

“We understand Denis Leary is edgy and this is his schtick, that Boston tough guy appeal,” said Catholic League spokesgal Kiera McCaffrey. “But going after the Blessed Mother is the kind of thing that really gets our backs up.”

“This is satire,” said channel spokesman Tony Fox. “Comedy Central is an adult network and we think Denis Leary has the right to speak freely about what he thinks is funny. We don’t cave to pressure and we’re not pulling the show off the air. That’s not something we’ve ever done.”

No indeedy. Denis’ special is schedule to air again Dec. 17, 19,21, 24 and, of course, 25.

Perhaps you could try again

All right, step by step:

Leary's words were neither slanderous nor libelous ... [nor] seditious ...

The point is that "free speech" is not an absolute right, so that particular knee-jerk reaction on your part is wrong-headed. Slander, libel, sedition, etc., constitute well-recognized limits on speech. I did not say that Leary was guilty of any of them; surely you can understand the difference.

[the remarks] were not directed at any discrete individual

So if you slander a large enough group of people, it somehow doesn't count? The famous "blood libel" wasn't really a libel because it was directed at Jews in general, rather than particular Jews? You can't be that stupid.

Leary misrepresents Catholic teaching and insults those who hold them with the intention of dismissing them as lunatics. The point is not whether or not this is a violation of law - it probably isn't. But it is uncivil, and what the Catholic League is proposing is not a legislative response, but an "informal" one. Assuming the people who paid Leary for this "entertainment" have a scrap of decency about them - which they may not - they should apologize for broadcasting this rubbish, withdraw it, and refrain from doing it again. If they don't, pressure in the form of boycotts, media exposure, etc., should be brought to bear.

... chilling of speech by threats of violence against the speaker ...

The point is that this already happens all the time. It is part of the ontology of human social interaction. One would be an idiot to insult, to his face, the mother of a man carrying a knife to his face. One would be wise to practice self-censorship in such a case. This has the positive effect of encouraging civil behavior, and discouraging bullying. It is a mechanism which has functioned since man started living in social groups.

Neither would Leary be likely to make such an ass of himself if he were dealing one-on-one with a muscular practicing Catholic in South Boston. He could reasonably expect a punch in the nose, and he would deserve it. Real men will only take so many "fighting words". The law, for once, is sensible enough to recognize that.

Similarly, it is not acceptable for Jews or Muslims to be insulted in this way, because it is well known that some form of retaliation will be forthcoming, either by a media outcry or by public demonstrations (which have, it must be noted, turned violent on occasion). As a Catholic, I would like to be given equal respect. Since reason and charity have obviously failed, apparently a certain amount of fear is what is needed to induce a similar reluctance.

... physical harm at the hands of a theocratic zealot ...

Rubbish, and hysterical conflation. People's patience with insults is limited, and it is unreasonable to expect them to put up with them past a certain point. It has always been thus, and always will be. If one insists on twisting the tiger's tail, a rational person should expect to get mauled on occasion. That expectation is very useful in preventing the provocation in the first place.

the expression of the Catholic faith is "chilled" by the words of Denis Leary

The point was made in the context of a critique of the position of free speech absolutism. If speech is never to be "chilled" by the self-censorship imposed by the bounds of civil behavior, then neither, by the same Amendment, is religious expression. Knowing that it is acceptable to be ridiculed - as Leary as has done - for one's religious beliefs makes it likely that one to practice self-censorship in the expression of those beliefs, i.e., "chilling" said expression. If "chilling" insulting speech through encouraging self-censorship is impermissible, it is equally wrong to chill religious expression through a similar mechanism.

Moreover, I have cited numerous examples - and could cite many more - which taken together constitute a pattern of persecution. I should think it obvious that persecution has a chilling effect on religious expression.

I can't make it clearer than that, and I'm not amused at your attempts to equate encouraging civil behavior with issuing fatwas, calls for theocracy, etc. So I'll consider the points made, and leave it there.

Your objection is to the broadcast of Leary's words in a publically available venue, not to the individual right of Leary to actually speak the words. Correct?

Correct. I have no interest in restricting his private speech - unless it happens within my hearing, in which case, I will respond as I see fit, up to and including a punch in the nose.

But speech made in a public venue entails certain additional responsibilities, a fact which used to be recognized by the states. It would be better if individual broadcasters, rather than governmental entities, did the regulating. This in fact was what happened in the days of the Hayes Code.

As an example, CBS decided a few years ago to air a tape of Jack Kevorkian giving one of his "patients" a lethal injection. Some stations in Louisiana refused to carry it. I applaud that decision, but regret that CBS itself didn't have the decency to refrain from broadcasting a snuff film in the first place. In a decent society, such an action would so thoroughly damage CBS's reputation that they might have to close their doors, but alas it did not come to pass.

The media always selects what material it chooses to publish, and edits it as it wishes. These days it consistently makes choices which "appeal to prurient interest", as the phrase used to go. The result has been a continual, gradual decline in the quality of our discourse, especially as it is well known that no one ever lost money underestimating the intelligence of the American people. "Change the channel" is an insufficient response when there are almost no alternative choices. When the only way to avoid filth is to withdraw from participation in the public forum, it serves to suppress ("chill"?) the expression of those advocating decency. Which is, ultimately, the motivation behind the protection of the prurience in the first place.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.