Saturday, May 10, 2008 12:31:50 AM · by sevenbak
http://www.cumorah.com/etexts/jesusthechrist.txt ^ | James E. Talmage
Posted on 05/03/2008 6:58:15 PM PDT by Alex Murphy
Bill Donohue may not be tired of the culture wars–or internecine Catholic wars. The head of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights is often over the top in denunciations of anti-Catholicism, real or perceived, and of other Catholics who Donohue sees as not toeing the proper Catholic line. But even Donohue may have outdone himself, and done in his own organization, if his latest press release prompts an IRS investigation.
The May 2 release is “Catholic Dissidents Advise Obama,” and it draws down on Obama’s Catholic National Advisory Committee, which includes several Commonwealers, such as Cathleen Kaveny and Grant Gallicho. It also includes Catholics in public and religious life, ranging from Sen. Bob Casey of Pennsylvania to the Sister of St. Joseph, Sr. Catherine Pinkerton. Also included are more than a few writers and theologians whose work I have long admired. Point of disclosure: I have also known Bill Donohue for years, and while I think he is completely wrongheaded many times, and inimical to the church’s well-being other times, he can also be a good guy to have a beer with, as well as someone who does not run from an argument, and an advocate who can point out indisputable cases of anti-Catholicism that still persist.
That said, this latest blast is way outta line. Donohue not only labels these Obama-advising Catholics as “dissidents” but he says “Practicing Catholics have every right to be insulted by Obama’s advisory group”–setting up Catholics who back Obama as bad Catholics and opponents of Obama, by implication, as good Catholics. Donohue employs his favorite trick of the invidious–and distorting–comparison, saying he wouldn’t have gay advisors who “don’t reflect the sentiment of the gay community”–as if these Obama-backers don’t reflect Catholic opinion. (In fact, they largely do. Not that this should be about public opinion, no?)
In his closing, Donohue takes a real potshot, saying that “If these are the best ‘committed Catholic leaders, scholars and advocates’ Obama can find, then it is evident that he has a ‘Wright’ problem when it comes to picking Catholic advisors.” As if these Catholics–check out the list–are the equivalent of Jeremiah Wright…!
But let me dissect this a bit more analytically. I see four chief problems.
One is that Donohue bases his criticism of these dozens of advisors principally on the “scores” that the abortion rights group NARAL gives some of the political figures on the committee (conveniently not mentioning the presence of Democrats Bob Casey and Tim Roemer, also on Obama’s committee, who have taken stands against abortion rights in many cases). Donohue also states that Obama’s pol pals do not agree with the church’s “three major public policy issues: abortion, embryonic stem cell research and school vouchers.” That is a rather selective list, in that the bishops’ own statement on political participation, titled “Faithful Citizenship,” lists seven principal policy areas, and they include “Option for the Poor and Vulnerable,” “Dignity of Work and the Rights of Workers,” and “Caring for God’s Creation.” Not to mention the church’s opposition to the Iraq War, which John McCain wants to continue.
Indeed, while Donohue has criticized McCain’s alliance with the rock-ribbed televangelist and preacher of standard anti-Catholic rhetoric, John Hagee, he has not brought similar scrutiny to McCain’s own Catholic advisory board.
And that raises the second problem, which was noted by the liberal group, Catholics United, namely that Donohue’s apparent partisanship could jeopardize the League’s 501c3 non-profit status. Catholics United also cites passages from “Onward Christian Solders,” a new book by Deal Hudson–a longtime GOP advisor–that show how Donohue has been active in helping the Bush White House and the Republican Party woo the Catholic vote.
This adds up to a big potential problem for Donohue. Yet it also adds up to a big payday for him. As the League’s publicly-available financial forms show, Donohue takes in a whopping $343,000 a year in salary and compensation. He can rightly claim that he has turned the League from a penny-ante mom-and-pop shop into the $20-million-dollar a year culture war machine that it is. But while few would disagree with fighting anti-Catholicism, I wonder how many will see Donohue as getting rich off anti-Catholicism.
A final point: Pope Benedict XVI, who Donohue spares no effort to defend, even when the pontiff is not under attack, made an explicit call during last month’s visit for Catholics to seek unity, not division. I’m not sure how Donohue’s internecine and potentially partisan sniping achieves that end, or even how attacking other Catholics connects with fighting anti-Catholicism.
Borat. QED
FWIW, the last 3 Threads that have been posted are about Mormonism:
Yup
This is a good example of your odd hobby. Is this belief of yours a tenet of faith expounded upon in the Protestant Catechism? Because the Catholic Catechism flatly refutes the notion on which your belief is based. I am almost certain you have been made aware of this error, yet you persist in your belief.
That is where Borat fits in. Borat believed that all American women wanted to have sex with him. He took a small facet of American culture and allowed it to mushroom into a giant lie that perverted him and made him a ludicrous character. IIRC he was corrected about that misperception, but tenaciously clung to it....well....it was a very appealing belief. But his acting out that belief was usually considered very offensive....when he was not taken as an ignorant buffoon.
While one can easily relate to a false belief that would satisfy the basest sex drive ( for satirical effect after all ), it is more difficult to understand the need to persist in distorting the facts concerning a faith group's traditional devotions. The distortions appear to only serve as strawmen to be toppled by the convenient bible quote.
Instead of locking the thread, why not ban the poster who comes in and posts content-free attacks at other posters, who posts threats to become even more abusive (but within the rules), because he/she doesn't like the idea of shutting down the verbal abuse that goes on here most days?
Why do you permit bad posting behavior to drive out good posting behavior?
sitetest
Why do you permit bad posting behavior to drive out good posting behavior?
**********************
This thread has inspired some sorely needed discussion of an issue/issues that have been festering in the Religion Forum for some time. Allowing bad behaviour by some to put an end to that would, ironically, be one more example of that to which some of us have been objecting.
Poking the threads with sharp sticks is a method of deflating the bible babble and ending the thread and waste of bandwidth
ROTFL!!!!
Those weren't my words that you're disagreeing with.
I was disagreeing with your own personal interpretation of Scripture.
You certainly are. You say Catholics deify Mary. It's absolutely false. You are entitled to your opinion but you are not entitled to your own facts.
Sometimes I think it’s a Marian dogma for RC’s to make things personal on FR, whenever workable.
NOT at all!
It’s quite nice to feel comfortable ignoring them.
*********************
If something were to be done about the trolling, spamming, mocking and taunting that takes place in this forum, what then?
Some here might adjust, others might not.
And here we have the very reason for the Reformation itself — because Rome cannot be challenged, all disagreement must be obliterated., or at the very least dismissed as “diatribes” by “trolls.”
There must be some Catholics out there who recognize how to debate issues without declaring the discussion null and void simply because it does not like the counter-argument.
Some of these suggestions being made by Catholics on this thread would be laughable if they weren’t so sad, and would be tantamount to either closing the Religion Forum or putting up a sign, “NO PROTESTANTS ALLOWED.”
And just once I would like to see a Catholic count up the number of Catholic threads and compare them to the number of Protestant threads on the RF. It is easily 10 to one.
It very often feels like some Catholic posters here will not be happy until that ratio is 10 to zero.
==
INDEED.
Quite ghastly.
And what angers me . . . is all this tumbling out so eggregiously with JimRob not in the best of health. Like, he really NEEDS this.
At the risk of sending the RC’s into flights of ecstasy, I’m praying about bowing out just for JimRob’s health and sanity at this trying time. It really outrages me that they’d mount such a push at this time. However, given the centuries of worse skullduggary, doesn’t really surprise me.
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.