Anti-Christian Bigotry and The Left
February 9th, 2007 by Peter
Our opponents employ several different strategies to intimidate and silence those who dare to oppose them. Probably none backfires as much as the claim that anyone who knows marriage is between a man and a woman is a “bigot.” In fact, an advertisement currently running for the Dan Lovallo show quotes Brian saying as much. And two letters featured in the Tuesday Courant took strong exception to that very point.
So heavily invested is the Left in the view that Christians are the primary purveyors of intolerance that any suggestion religious conservatives can also be victims of bigotry leaves the lefties sputtering with incredulous rage–something I’ve mentioned before both here and here. (Liberal reactions to our concerns about bias at the Courant appear to be a subset of this phenomenon.)
Enter the controversy surrounding Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards’ hiring of two bloggers properly described by the Catholic League as “anti-Catholic vulgar trash talking bigots.” The anti-Christian writings of one of them, Amanda Marcotte, are so vile and hateful that we will not quote them on this blog. We will, however, provide a link to Kathryn Jean Lopez’s column on Marcotte. Warning to our Christian readers: the first excerpt is especially blasphemous. Lopez’s piece on Marcotte can be read here.
Now that you’ve read Lopez on Marcotte you may be asking yourself “How is the Left reacting to this? After all, they’re all about fighting bigotry, right?” Well, yes, except when the target is us. The first post on this subject at Connecticut’s premiere nutroots blog minimized Marcotte’s hate speech this way:
But heaven forfend that one should take a position contrary to the Holy See and use strong language in so doing.
A later post on the same site casually described Marcotte and her fellow hate-monger as mere “opinionated, feminist bloggers” and other comments were equally dismissive.
The double standard of the Left here is breathtaking. I recall an argument I once had with an opponent at an Election Day polling place a few years ago. She feigned disgust when I used the phrase “you guys” and kept repeating it over and over, as if it were some smoking gun proof of my bigotry. For the Left, a conservative’s simple utterance of “you guys” is evidence of intolerance–but Amanda Marcotte’s hateful writings are merely the product of an “opinionated, feminist blogger” who disagrees with the Holy See.
Remember this episode the next time the “Plan B” issue comes up. The local activists dismissing the bigotry of Edwards’ bloggers are the same local activists who insist their efforts to force Catholic hospitals to provide abortion-inducing chemicals are not motivated by a desire to attack the religious liberty of Christian institutions.
I’m sure they don’t see the connection. But those of us who do should keep it in mind as this year’s pro-abortion attack on religious freedom in Connecticut heats up.
Just to be clear, I consider myself somewhere left of center and am appalled by Marcotte’s reference to Mary and Plan B. I suspect that there are many liberals that would agree with me. Edwards should fire this blogger and should have been smart enough not to make the hire in the first place.
A more important point to make, though, is that you shouldn’t paint everyone on “The Left” with such a broad brush.
Honestly, anyone that would stand behind Marcotte after she wrote that trash loses lots of (all?) credibility with me.
We aren’t “anti-Catholic” or “anti-Christian.”
We ARE against being forced to follow YOUR religious beliefs when they are not our own.
At the same time, we don’t expect you to live by our beliefs. We don’t want or expect you to marry anyone of the same sex, have an abortion, use birth control or do any other thing your religion tells you is wrong.
But you know that. You’re completely aware that there’s no war on Christianity and no hordes of anti-Catholics on the left. You’re manufacturing an “us against them” atmosphere to stir up the faithful in order to further a purely right wing political agenda. It has nothing at all to do with religion.
Simon-
Anyone who would stand behind Dobson, Falwell, Robertson etc. loses all credibility with me. As a Christian, I deeply resent their attempts to use my religion to divide our Country.
And Peter, your attempt to escape being called a bigot by finger-pointing at other “bigots” is deliciously ironic.
It’s amazing how the Left is all too eager to label any criticism of their agenda as “hate speech”, but completely ignores the anti-Christian bigotry that is continually evident within their own ranks. What a bunch of hypocrites.
“Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?” (Matthew 7:3)
Chele, the irony is that you *do* expect the folks on the Right to live by your beliefs. It is your side that wants to coerce the Catholic hospitals into being required to provide Plan B. If you truly believed in liberty, there would not be such coercion.
TrueBlueCT, anyone who would stand against Biblical truth loses all credibility with me. As a Bible-believing Christian, I deeply resent professed “Christians” who have actually twisted their faith towards political correctness, thereby dividing many long-standing churches (esp. Episcopal and Congregational) as well as our nation.
Simon, thank you for having the courage to say Marcotte’s remarks are too extreme. Despite our differences of opinion, you give me hope that there is still some degree of sense (and not just sensibility) among those on the Left.
No Dave. I do not expect anyone on the Right, or anywhere else, to live by my beliefs. And I don’t expect you to force me to live by yours.
As for Catholic hospitals providing Plan B, I support their right NOT to provide it.
But taxpayers have no obligation to support religious institutions with public funds.
When Catholic hospitals choose to deny medical care based on religious belief, they have choosen religion over medicine.
That’s their choice and I support their liberty to make it; but at that point they should no longer receive public funds.
Dave–
Biblical “truths” will always be argued. I doubt I’ll accept your interpretations, and I’d never try to force mine upon anyone else. That belief in everyone’s freedom to come to their own terms is why I’m not a fundamentalist. (It’s also why a lot of people see a common thread between folks like you and the Islamofascists!)
The Book is meant to be the Living Word and represent the spirit of Jesus and the Glory of God. That always struck me as a tad bit more expansive than fundamentalism would have it.
P.S. On a curious note, do you believe in evolution?
P.P.S. Where do you stand on women wearing pant suits?
Dueteronomy 22:5 –“The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.”
Whoops–
I forgot to send you this from CBN:
“Overcoming Bitterness and Resentment”
What the Scripture Says:
“Make every effort to live in peace with all men and to be holy; without holiness no one will see the Lord. See to it that no one misses the grace of God and that no bitter root grows up to cause trouble and defile many” (Hebrews 12:14,15).
“Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice. Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you” (Ephesians 4:31,32).
I’m sorry, I must be missing something in your argument. How is it that a Catholic hospital providing medical services to certain patients and being reimbursed via Medicare equates to being “support of a religious institution with public funds”? Really, it seems to me that public funds are in fact being expended on behalf of the patients themselves, and the fact that a hospital (Catholic or otherwise) consequently receives payment for services rendered is incidental. In truth it is merely “support of individual persons with public funds”.
As you would have it, medicine would have to be practiced in the form you dictate, or not at all. Sounds pretty intolerant to me.
Good point, Dave. It should also be noted that the proposed bill mandates “Plan B” for all hospitals regardless of whether they recieve public funds. So even by Chele’s own low standard it still counts as an infringement of religious liberty.
TrueBlueCT,
If you are going to quote Bible verses as part of your arguments, be careful in your selective reading of scripture.
You cited Herbews 12:14-15 in your posting. And how does the very next verse begin? “See that no one is sexually immoral” (Hebrews 12:16)
You also cited Ephesians 4:31-32, but let’s not overlook this earlier passage within the same chapter: “You must no longer live as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their thinking. They are darkened in their understanding and separated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them due to the hardening of their hearts. Having lost all sensitivity, they have given themselves over to sensuality so as to indulge in every kind of impurity, with a continual lust for more.” (Ephesians 4:17-19)
Maybe it’s not such a coincidence after all that you were drawn to these particular references!
I bring this to your attention, not in support of my political views (since only secular arguments seem to hold sway with the Left when they play the trump card, “separation of church and state”), but because you said that you are a Christian. With revisionist theology running rampant in some churches these days, it is no surprise that many fall into the mistaken belief that good and evil are a matter of interpretation by man, rather than being the immutable dictates of God.
As a matter of personal faith, only you can decide for yourself! But before you wrap yourself up in the non-judgmental, all-accepting blanket of “God is Love” (the phrase that is so often used out of context to justify the abandonment of righteousness), let me remind you that God is Holy, Just, and Unchanging. He “hates all who do wrong” (Psalm 5:5). Moreover, “Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows.” (Galatians 6:7)
I am sure that Jesus understood there would always be disagreements on matters of faith, and that is why He said, “Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division.” (Luke 12:51) But can all such disagreements be reconciled? How can diametrically opposing viewpoints both be consistent with Biblical truth? Can there be more than one truth? The answer would seem to be summarized by Jesus’ reply to Pharisees, which also serves a universal comment to future generations: “He who belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God.” (John 8:47)
P.S. Since you asked, I personally find nothing inconsistent between the theory of evolution and the notion that God created the universe. Likewise, I find nothing inconsistent between God deliberately creating us as distinctly “male and female”, and then later reminding us (via Deuteronomy 22:5) that we ought to embrace and celebrate the differences between the masculine and feminine rather than attempting to negate these differences. Far from being about the clothing itself (I’ve seen some pretty alluring women’s pantsuits), this is all about our acceptance or rejection of the gender role for which we were designed by nature.
Wow. Marcotte is, bar none, the epitome of the phrase “frothing at the mouth.” I have read and heard a lot of venom and vitriol but she takes the cake. Simon, I agree with you, Edwards should fire her and admit he made a mistake in not vetting her better first. I also agree that not all on the left should be broad-brushed as being like her. We have not a few prochoice regulars on our blog (it’s kind of on sabbatical now) and they started out perhaps a little inflammatory but once they saw we weren’t bible-thumping hatespeech types like they’d been led to believe we all were, we have become dear, fast friends and have grown in our understandings.
Truebluect, you’re a Christian? Really?
Chele, regarding “You’re completely aware that there’s no war on Christianity and no hordes of anti-Catholics on the left. You’re manufacturing an “us against them” atmosphere to stir up the faithful in order to further a purely right wing political agenda. It has nothing at all to do with religion.”
You really can’t be serious!!
Come on! Do a little history homework before you speak PLEASE! PLEASE, do yourself a huge favor and stop saying things like “You’re completely aware…” when you are completely and 1000% wrong about your assumption! We’ve manufactured nothing! Intellectuals/tenured professors from liberal Ivies Yale and Harvard–in published books and papers– have been bemoaning the reality of pervasive Catholic-bashing since before I was born! Even as done by other Christians!
From 1992: Harvard professor Arthur Schlesinger, Sr., labeled prejudice against the Catholic Church “…the deepest bias in the history of the American people.” Quoted in the article by Canadian Richard Bastien, “The Bigotry of Progressive Thinkers,” Ottawa Citizen, 24 November I992. (a must read in itself)
1953: Yale professor Peter Viereck, in his book Shame and Glory of the Intellectuals, chapter 3, p. 45: “Catholic baiting is the anti-Semitism of the liberals.”
2001-2003:Bob Jones III, writing his President’s Column in the fundamental Christian college Bob Jones University Review, Summer, 2001: belittled Catholicism as “frightening” referring to it as such: “…cults which call themselves Christian, including Catholicism and Mormonism…” [they removed this page after a firestorm but it is still available on webarchive.org, I also have a 2004 screenshot of it to prove it; as of September 30, 2005, it is also quoted here: http://www.nd.edu/~observer/02152000/Viewpoint/0.html ]
According to numerous sources including a Washington Post March 15, 2000 article, “Bob Jones Jr. once said he would rather ‘speak to the devil himself”’than meet Pope John Paul II during a visit to South Carolina in 1987.” http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/chavez030700.asp and
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPcap/2000-03/15/013r-031500-idx.html (also worth reading)
Just read the Bastien, jewishworldreview.com and Washington Post articles to get a sense of how prevalent the “hordes of anti-Catholics on the left” really are.
AND you still haven’t answered the question I put to you on this in the other post:
Let’s hear you say that you also support putting similarly imposing restrictions on Muslims as you intend to do to Catholics here in this or any state. Say here, for the record, that you would want laws forcing any Muslim doctor to perform abortions after 120 days of pregnancy, when Muslims believe, as all schools of Islamic law do, that abortion is only allowed if the mother’s life is in serious danger otherwise and then after 120 days of pregnancy.
I want to hear you say this is what you also would support.
Because if you are for forcing the Catholics to accept such religious restriction, then you must also support forcing Muslims an equally-offensive religious restriction by law. If you cannot say you support the latter, then you can’t say you support the former.
Accch, I forgot again that my “a href” html doesn’t give the links here, so here they are plain:
http://www.catholiceducation.org/links/jump.cgi?ID=1204
http://www.bartleby.com/73/166.html
http://web.archive.org/web/20030609213206/http://www.bju.edu/aboutbju/pca/summer99.xml
http://www.nd.edu/~observer/02152000/Viewpoint/0.html
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/chavez030700.asp
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPcap/2000-03/15/013r-031500-idx.html
chele, on 29 Jan 2007, you wrote on the other related thread that “Since the claims made here are intriguing, I have indeed begun the process of obtaining all the relevant answers re: state funding.” And NaCN had various suggestions as to how to help you go about that.
In this thread, on Feb. 10, you repeated your belief that “… taxpayers have no obligation to support religious institutions with public funds.” Does that mean you’ve “obtained all the relevant answers re: state funding?” If so, please share the statistics with us, and also I’m interested in your comment as to why you still think that’s relevant given Peter’s reminder above that the proposed bill mandates “Plan B” for all hospitals regardless of whether they recieve public funds.
What really stops me cold, chele, is that you still think Plan B is good for women. You never did answer me when I asked you (nor did any of the others) this, regarding your continued support of Plan B as “medical care:”
Plan B is between 20 and 40 times the dosage of HRT (which “fuels breast cancer”), as proved in this thread, http://www.ctfamily.org/blog/2007/01/26/courants-2007-priorities-redefine-marriage-attack-religious-liberty/#comments
I will presume you read through those proofs in that thread because to presume otherwise would mean that after all this time and your renewed commenting on this topic, that you purposely are choosing to remain in the dark.
Knowing the scientific truth of the dangers of Emergency Contraception/Plan B as you cannot deny knowing them now, how can you still think this is giving “compassionate care/help” for rape victims or anyone, and worse, how can you continue supporting any health provider/organization or political personage that continues to completely avoid “providing this medically accurate information” to women?
Yeah, Annie. I’m a Christian. I just don’t wear it on my sleeve and/or use it as a political wedge to divide my country.
P.S. Who gave you your special dispensation?
Annie,
Do you want me to provide citations refuting every single one of yours, as to the safety of Plan B? Because I can, and I will.
Do you want to go through the contraindications of every drug on the market? Because many, many, drugs on the market have contraindications more directly proven and far far more dangerous than Plan B. And we can go there.
Maybe you don’t want women to take ANY drugs because almost every drug carries some harm as well as benefit.
Or is it just drugs that interfere in some way with a woman’s “role” as breeder?
TrueBlueCT wrote to Annie Banno: “Who gave you your special dispensation?”
As a Christian, you should know that the answer is: Christ.
The New Testament is replete with commandments to “let your light . . . shine,” to “stand as witnesses,” to “go and teach all nations,” to “warn the sinner,” and so forth, and so forth.
I encourage you to set aside some time each day to read your scriptures, even if only for a few minutes. Pray for His spirit to help you understand His word. As a Christian you need to know what Christ taught; what he wants you to do. He has given you His word. You need to read it.
I’ll let NaCN’s able answer stand for the proper reply to TrueblueCT who also has ignored all my other replies to him/her and my subsequent questions. Sarcastic sound-bite quips and taunts such as yours, TrueblueCT, are really just that. No substance to your accusation and no answers to my replies to you.
Chele, TrueblueCT and Gabe, “He who asserts must prove.” You have asserted a great many things without proof, and when I presented disproofs of your assertions, you haven’t directly answered my replies in any of these threads. You’ve ignored them.
You (probably without realizing it) put forth a lot of misinformation as ironclad fact. If you continue to ignore my replies and my followon questions then you are in effect admitting 1) you have no answer or proof, and/or the following
1) you think it’s safe to victimized rape victims twice by allowing them a drug that is 20 to 40 times the dosage of something that’s already been deemed by cancer experts to be “fueling breast cancer in women” and is five times the dosage of a Group 1 (highest kind) carcinogen,
2) you disbelieve that Catholics have been discriminated against for over 50 years
3) you would not demand equally-offensive restrictions on religious freedom of Muslim doctors as you do expect from Catholic ones,
4) you think it better to let rapists of underage children go free then, to do it to more children and underage teens, just so that women won’t be discouraged from going to abortion clinics.
You refuse to learn something you don’t already believe. That is intolerant and shortsighted, if that is your choice.
Your credibility decreases every time you taunt, challenge or insult us here into answering your claims and questions and then totally ignore the credible, fact-based disproofs of your claims and misinformation that we provide. I’m not here to make you or anyone look foolish. I don’t want you to be silenced. I come here to inform and educate. I won’t sit silently while misinformation (note I don’t call it ignorance) gets thrown around by you or anyone, especially in such condescending tones in which you, trueblueCT and others have persisted.
How can you expect to be taken seriously when you don’t acknowledge the facts from objective sources like the National Institute of Health and many vetted, peer-reviewed scientific journals? I admit, it’s enough to make one’s head spin, even if you choose to leave it in the sand. To act like only you have the right knowledge, when you’ve been shown to be wrong on several issues, is not intelligent, adult discourse and debate.
Do I want you to go through the contraindications of every drug on the market or to tell me about the statistics on medical malpractice or hospital employees committing crimes all over the U.S.? Do I want to “shut down ANY and EVERY medical facility in which an employee commits a crime against a patient”? By asking these questions, you’re attempting to divert the subject by refocusing the question on “the whole world” instead of answering my questions. That’s avoiding my questions. Why is it that you are willing to look the other way when women die or are harmed from legal abortion and legal contraception? Why are those deaths acceptable to you? Do you realize that in most states, veterinary hospitals are better regulated than abortion clinics? Why is that ok with you?
Also the answers and legal recourses to those questions you pose instead are well-researched, -regulated, -publicized and -accepted. The contraindications of abortion and of artificial contraceptives ARE NOT any of those things. Women are NOT being informed about the possible risks or protected from them legally or otherwise. Only now are women starting to sue—and win—because their abortionists didn’t warn them they were at higher risk from breast cancer. Only last night did I see a law firm’s commercial looking to represent victims of the Ortho Evra patch’s harms. We’re being lied to by Planned Parenthood and others about all this because they’re a billion dollar industry and their profits pay their directors near a half-million in salaries each. The simple fact is: by avoiding the questions I posed, you think that women should not be informed of or protected from all the possible risks that have been found.
You are refusing to acknowledge certain truths and to answer simple questions, which speaks volumes.
Scientists know that there are always going to be studies to show harm, and there are always going to be studies finding no harm. Just as in the many studies finding a link between abortion and increased breast cancer risk. There are some studies finding no significant link. There are many more finding one though.
“Refutation” isn’t the issue with scientists. If it was, then they’d be guilty of political posturing. They look to find the results that they scientifically find, whatever they are. Pro-choice Dr. Janet Daling, in the 1994 NCI Journal, wrote: “If politics gets involved in science, it will really hold back the progress we make. I have three sisters with breast cancer, and I resent people messing with the scientific data to further their own agenda, be they pro-choice or pro-life. I would have loved to have found no association between breast cancer and abortion, but our research is rock solid, and our data is accurate. It’s not a matter of believing. It’s a matter of what is.”
Feel free, though, to post all your sources and studies, with URLs please. AND NOTE: all mine were from objective, non-abortion-industry, non-contraceptive-industry experts. No subjective, potentially-biased source such as Planned Parenthood’s Allan Guttmacher Institute or NARAL or any thinktank known for supporting abortion or contraception is acceptable, just as it wouldn’t be acceptable to you if I posted prolife sources. I look forward to seeing your vetted, independently peer-reviewed published scientific studies in well-known and accepted journals such as I have given.
Everyone seems to have alot of energy and time. Go feed the hungry and hang out with the homeless. It,’s cold outside, but it’s colder in this room. Peace and Love A