I'MMA LET YOU FINISH
God, Bitch!
Great analysis.
Now, who's gonna win the Derby?
With organized religion getting so involved in politics, why do they get a tax free ride?
Get these freaks out of our government and our lives.
Nice breakdown.
Can we get rid of Barb and get Bob Edwards back?
Notice that the realignment of Catholics is presented as 82% Democrat to 46% Democrat. This is immediately after the assertions that Catholics have become conservatives. The implication is that Catholics are Republicans, and completely ignores the fact that a plurality of Americans identify as independent. In fact, 46% Democrat is higher than the national average.
Conflict of interest!
What should Kerry say about religion in politics? Check out this imaginary speech:
http://worldonfire.typepad.com/
w...n_our_side.html
"God is my primary audience."
Then your ratings are in the toilet dear, because THERE IS NO GOD !
'Surreally reminds me of growing up in the '50's, when white was right, God was white and left was wrong.
I think it's the universality of judeo-christian mind control that these people "miss", and wish to recreate.
I thought all these people repeated the "Pledge of Allegiance" to the flag of the United States of America. NOW they tell us they REALLY answer to a higher power.
I think we have some criminal behavior to be accounted for here.
What's it gonna be?
Allegiance to your country or to some invisible cloud being?
An invisible cloud being that repeatedly asks for domination and slaughter?
We've found a witch, may we burn her?
When I was a child I believed in the tooth fairy, Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and God. As a grown up I no longer believe in imaginary beings.
Wow, you'd think after USA Today's Jack Kelly debacle that editors would be more scrutizing of a so-called "Christian Journalist's" report. Well, I guess in the-way-it-ought-to-be world, that would happen. In this world, it's the same shit all over again.
Why aren't the AP, NY-Times, Washington Post, NPR and cable news networks covering the Methodists meeting in Pittsburgh (continuing through 05/07/04)?
Why aren't major media sources analyzing and "exposing" the Preznit's politics at variance with his church's teachings on the war, death penalty and distribution of wealth in society?
Is it just Catholics who are being demonized by the press or just Democrats?
How could an ace be 1 and 11? What kind of a God would allow that?
Hagerty is just one festering boil on the diseased body of NPR. It was clear as early as eight years ago when NPR officially began reporting "religious news" at the orders of their new fundy CEO that what had long been a voice of reason in the wilderness of American media had become infected with christofascism. I wrote them a politely nasty letter to that effect back then and haven't contributed a dime since. So at least I'm not helping to pay for this kind of propaganda. Anyone who continues to work for NPR and has no intention of resigning in protest (including some old favorites like Stanberg and Shore) is part of the rethug one-party state.
Anyone wanna buy some snake-oil? Seriously, it'll cure ALL your ailments, improve your life, turn you into a perfect human being...
I cc'ed this entire post to ombudsman@npr.org
What the hell? Catholics for "absolute truth" vs. "cafeteria Catholics"?! THE POPE IS AGAINST THE DEATH PENALTY, AND WAS AGAINST THE IRAQ WAR. The absolute truth involved here, I believe, was "thou shalt not kill," and yet these positions seem to fall on the liberal side of the spectrum. This is indeed very insidious. The revealing thing is that it doesn't even seem like what she describes as her Christian values of treating everyone equally and striving for the truth are anywhere to be found in her reporting.
Freak show indeed.
The local bishop here went on a local radio program saying he wouldn't administer communion to Kerry. From what I've heard, he actually denied communion to politicians in his former diocese.
What ever happened to the privacy of religion? Why can't this strongman just say that would be an issue between him and Kerry, or, if he must, say that if Kerry were to seek communion he would ask to have a private discussion beforehand? These strongmen are losing the faithful.
Being a former Christian, I can imagine Jesus in whatever dimension he now occupies regarding His faithful and saying to the two other aspects of Himself, "Mistakes were made."
I actually emailed NPR about Hagerty's report complaining that: 1. She failed to give the American Catholic/pro-choice issue its due context in relation to other "Catholic" moral issues (death penalty, war in Iraq), and 2. She is using the right-wing scripts/talking points in her report, thereby giving some legitimacy to their particularly slanted view.
Interestingly, Hagerty wrote me back, claiming not to be a right-wing zealot and expressing some interest in the idea that there are other moral issues out there that American Catholics are equally divided and/or ambivalent about that the Church doesn't harp on. (And that the right wing doesn't bring up because the only real common ground in this battle is the abortion debate).
I don't know if it's a good sign or not, but she has asked me for a reminder email next week so she can look into this further. (She's off to cover the Methodist Congress deciding what to do about the recognition of gay marriage). Having read the linked "Evangelical News" site, I'm not too optimistic, but we'll see if anything comes of this.
You're rockin' today, Atrios.
Check out the anti-evolution theme park- sort of a Fundie Disneyland without them satanic fairies- that just opened in Pensacola.
The worst thing these people do is poison the minds of the young.
Atrios says:
She's careful - very careful - to not let her reporting appear to be obviously slanted, but it's hideously slanted in a subtle manipulative fashion.
That's NPR in a nutshell. Carve it on their tombstone.
God is in the e-mails.
I listened to the NPR piece and the impression I got wasn't the impression you're forwarding here. I haven't gone over the entire transcript, but what I got out of it was the irony that JFK had to do everything possible to convince voters he wasn't mindlessly following Vatican orders while Kerry is expected to do everything possible to convince voters he's a "good" Catholic who follows the Vatican's orders.
People who go to Mass on weekdays aren't "particularly hardcore conservative Catholics" as you've described them. They are devout Catholics who get something out of starting their mornings going to Mass. The fact that they do so doesn't necessarily say anything about their political views. That smacks of bias.
I'll end this by saying I'm not a Roman Catholic (in fact, I don't consider myself a Christian). But I don't think you've been especially fair in describing this NPR piece.
....again NPR is so much less than it pretends to be.... when are Tony Roberts, John Edwards, and The Amazing Kreskin taking over Morning Edition?
Screw these fuckheads, screw them all.
If the Catholic Church wants to disappear into total insignificance (the church, as opposed to the Catholic people), they just have to begin enacting that friggin excomunnication on abortion issue. The Catholic Church will basically lose the whole Europe with this.
Damn, people will really miss the old communist atheism-promoting regimes if these idiots don't shut up.
Atrios,
Can you point out a reporter who doesn't somehow slant coverage a bit based on their core beliefs? It's impossible... you know it. Just another way for you to go on an anti-Christian witchhunt.
Anyway, give me the name of one completely non-baised journalist. I'll do the same kind of analysis you've done here and prove it ain't so.
Bigot.
Eric_SF
good job.
maybe you should remind her that you expect to hear how Bush doesn't exactly follow commonly accepted tenets of the Methodists and, as I have heard on this blog, doesn't even belong to a congregation or go to church services on a regular basis.
Wasn't it courageous of her to say she would rather lose her job than her commitment to Baby Jeezus? Because, you know, there are so many Christians being kicked out of work for that very reason. Verily, like the myth about the King of Denmark wearing the Star, it is.
The whole point is, reffie, that since the Bu$h $yndicate and the Wepublicans got control of their budget, NPR has been a very conservative network- all while trying to pretend to being a bastion of liberal thought.
That practice is also known as deceit by those of us gauche enough and willing to sound harsh.
Eric_SF: I'm not too encouraged to hear that Hagerty is off to Pittsburgh to focus on the Methodists and gay marriage. A quick check of google finds a LOT of articles on the 2004 General Conference--most of them on international issues. Seems like she's got her axes to grind....
A sane analysis until the very last line. Using the phrase "liberal NPR" falls right into the right-wing trap.
At one time, NPR broadcast a fairly even-handed version of events that stuck to the facts. In the topsy-turvy media world we live in, "liberal" has come to mean nothing less than "the absence of a conservative bias." In fact, it seems the closer any print or broadcast piece comes to simply telling the truth, the more likely it will be labeled "liberal."
The present NPR, with all its Frum tirades, Cato/Manhattan Institute pundits, and pure Bush Administration hackery no longer broadcasts the predominantly fair, factual pieces which earned it the label in the first place.
So to call it the "liberal NPR" is worse than a misnomer, it's a right-wing lie.
Calling Atrios a bigot is like calling Winston Churchill a Nazi.
Go play somewhere else, troll.
Excellent analysis and great comments from the crowd. I was surprised (although after reading more about the report, maybe I shouldn't have been) that this story completely failed to mention or contrast Bush's absence of any barrier between personal spiritural beliefs(? or so claimed) and the country's business -- as so clearly defined in the clip from JFK. The AP article on Woodward's book a couple of weekends ago ended with the scariest quote of all -- Bush saying he was doing God's work by killing and maiming innocent Iraqis to further the profits of his corporate allies. THAT is the real story of religion in the Pres race -- Both claim to be people of faith but Kerry has a track record of seperating personal beliefs from government business while Bush claims God's hand leads him (and, thus, the government).
One aspect of the report that hasn't been mentioned is the juxtaposition of the voices of protestors. The cheers and rants of protestors in our culture increasingly carry connotations of extremism, irrationality and a lack of civility. Note how Haggerty uses this in her report:
"For these Catholics, White says, John Kerry is a very comfortable fit.
Group of Protesters: (In unison) Two, four, six eight, the Catholic Church is not a state.
HAGERTY: Last week some 300 people protested church doctrine on birth control in front of the Vatican embassy in Washington. Frances Kissling was there. She's the president of Catholics for a Free Choice."
AND, Note how seamlessly Haggerty moves from a statement that issues other than abortion are important to Catholics to cheers for Kerry at a pro-choice rally, immediately undercutting the union organizer's point:
"Another early worshiper, Charles Loveless, a union official, downplayed the abortion issue.
'There is a vast array of other social issues for children, for poor people, for things that we Catholics stand for, and in practically every one of these other issues, he is the man.'
Group: (In unison) Kerry! Kerry! Kerry! Kerry! Kerry!
HAGERTY: Recently John Kerry went to a Washington rally to receive the endorsement of Planned Parenthood and to call for a new America."
Woo. Big post Atrios. But necessary. And IMHO as an Episcopalian/Anglican, the evangelical (presumably Low Church) Hagerty has a brazen cheek trying to browbeat the C21 JFK for not allegedly emulating his C20 model. (I think she's got the wrong end of the stick entirely. Kerry's probably very much like JFK in keeping his faith personal.)
Is NPR 'liberal' tho' or is it trying to be 'balanced' in its political standpoints? That could be the reason why it's still fielding Hagerty: as the jester to the political courts, so to speak. But then why is she giving GOPians a free pass on... oh, botheration.
What does "conservative" mean? Huge government, huge deficits, perpetual war, loss of freedom, extreme government secrecy, God is only on MY side?
Ben Brackley, nicely snipped.
"It's not about abortion!"
"Oh yes it is!"
"Oh no it isn't!"
"Oh yes it is..."
and on and on until the end of the panto season. Gah.
Kennedy's challenge was to persuade voters that a Catholic could be a good presidential candidate. John Kerry's challenge is to persuade voters that this presidential candidate is a good Catholic.
One of the unfortunate facts about this piece by Haggerty is that she misses out on what the real story is. Kennedy's effort to prove that he wasn't so religious as to take orders from the Pope. (Pandering to WASP-types whose Catholic prejudices were pretty formidable) John Kerry has to showily embrace his Catholicism in an effort to prove that he is religious enough (Pandering to the fundie and evangelical types whose Catholic prejudices are still pretty formidable).
The payoff to the story that conservative Catholics are Republican just demonstrates the effectiveness of the Repubs to fight the cultural war -- getting folks on their side on a single issue at the expense of pocketbook issues, economic justice issues, civil justice issues or any of the (what used to be) "good works" issues.
To me the story is that 1) so much of the Kerry and Kennedy story is the same -- in that it is driven by the baggage of (mostly) WASPish types and 2) how the repub agenda has made religion a beauty contest issue to the detriment of the very Catholic requirements for good works.
gatrios (itself a slur! Try calling him jewtrios, doesn't sound hateful at all, now does it?): Leaving aside the real problem-not one of whether or not people can be without nminds, but of this dishonesty of representing oneself as "unbiased" and being careful and sneaky about inserting party lines,
Kwitney, Phillips, Moyers, Pitts, Jr, usually almost every investigative one on CBC (especially regarding China, but never regarding Israel), off the top of our head.
It is not a game. It is not about you having "your guys" with your team colors and us mirroring this. Phillips is a die-hard Republican who inserts whining about liberal social engineering-but at no time does he pretend to be a completely unbiased dispenser of truth. His books are almost half endnotes! That's real journalism, not just screamingly careening from Talking Point to Talking Point but actually looking at data and going from there.
You're not a child. We can't hold your hand and give you completely unbiased direct sources of truth. People claiming to be such-funny, maybe this is some kind of Crossworshipping thing-are selling something.
THE JESUS FACTOR, the Frontline special on Bush's evangelicism, should be getting MUCH more attention in the media. Check out my blog for details and commentary.
With organized religion getting so involved in politics, why do they get a tax free ride?
Exactly my thoughts, with Catholic clergy issuing doctrinal statements that appear to have the intent of directly affecting the electoral process, if not the outcome, of the upcoming elections. Perhaps the Catholic Church should lose its tax-exempt status.
Thanks for bringing this to our attention. I'd love to ask her how I would see her 'acting differently', as she says she does as a 'christian' journalist. Does that include not going to nightclubs, and going to church every day, all those 'moral' things some of us were taught as kids, but exclude being objective about people who disagree with her? And for god's sake how is she planning for her Journalism ... [to] make an eternal impact? She's just blowing words out of her ass! At this point she's demonstrating to me that abortion is the only social issue that is important to her. Which comes first, her journalism or getting her point across?
I hate it when these self-righteous people put up these invisible, imaginary lines we can or cannot go beyond!
As with this past week's news story about a priest arrested for the 22 year old ritualistic satanic murder of a nun in Cleveland, most Catholics have learned and are learning to have more faith in God than the men supposedly in His earthly employ.
Kerry needn't worry. The general absolution in the Ordinary of the Mass makes any congregant ready for Communion. I wouldn't expect any born again Methodists or Baptists to be know of this theological nuance and this past week's organized smear attempt against Kerry reflects this lack of awareness.
As we see so clearly living in the Bush death cult of Imperial America, there are many kinds and degrees of sin and it is hardly our human place to speak for God.
"God is my primary audience."
Then your ratings could be in the toilet dear, or, they might be really good, because THERE MIGHT NOT BE A GOD, OR THERE MIGHT: THERE'S NO WAY TO KNOW FOR SURE!
kei & yuri,
Bill Moyers... unbiased? Are you completely out of your mind? Pitts... he's an opinion columnist. No idea who Phillips or Kwitney is.
You're a joke, dude. As is this whole discussion.
Anyway, I challenge anyone to give me the name of a journalist who does not let their underlying beliefs somewhat color their reporting. Nobody can do it.
Skydiver, I've seen it elsewhere in the blogosphere. Perhaps it's up to us l33t bl0gz0rz to make it a story...
good post on your blog btw.
Dear Atrios,
If you squeeze hard enough, you just might get blood from a stone.
Since you have decided that Barbara Hagerty is one of the Enemies of Truth, subtly nudging NPR listeners against John Kerry (the candidate you presume that Hagerty dislikes), I suppose one will find in the coming months that NPR listeners are growing less and less supportive of him.
There's so much strain involved in this argument that it reminds me of some of the leftist critiques of PBS that I read in the '80s. They went something like this: "By giving the government imprimatur to 'experts' who work in business, and considering its reputation as a haven of liberals, PBS is actually consciously working against the revolutionary ideal."
Note, please, that I'm not smearing you or calling you a communist. I'm not attacking the left (which would be ridiculous considering that would involve attacking myself). I'm merely suggesting that you are wasting your time trying to unearth Barbara Hagerty's supposed bias. The report you cite is a very good example of solid journalism, and your critique seems to be that it was insufficiently deferent to the Democratic nominee. Because she didn't report this story in exactly the way you see it, you insist that she is "a menace." And you've got legions of readers who will doubtlessly agree with you. But you're wasting your time and their time. Move on.
Yrs,
thunk
Gatrios, everyone knows that journalists have their underlying beliefs. But consider this:
"You cannot hope to bribe or twist,
Thank God! the British journalist.
But seeing what the man will do
Unbribed, there's no occasion to."
There's coloration, which still accepts opposing points of view (number of those in Hagerty's piece? ONE) and there's deliberate spinning of a story against a candidate, and I'm afraid it looks very like Hagerty is guilty of the latter.
White Catholics, as the central swing voters, will probably determine the outcome of this election. If we get them to vote their pocketbooks, we win; if the Repubs get them on traditional values, they win.
My wife & I are friends with a devout Catholic couple. He's polite but beyond the pale; she's formerly conservative but been embittered by her corporate experiences - exs. downsizing, trimming back health & retirement benefits. She's become really ticked once she discovered that the Republican Party mainly confers benefits on the wealthy & corporate America. Since then, she's become a Democrat.
(cont'd)
Q.: Freed by the Truth, what shall one do? A.: Speak the Truth freely, for the benefit of mankind. Q.: How does one speak 'freely'? A.: Without fear or hesitation. Q.: Of what does one speak? A.: Of the Truth. Q.: How does one speak of theTruth to those who know It not? A.: By indirection, in a speech they understand. Q.: What do they understand? A.: Falsehoods. Q.: How do you speak freely in falsehoods they understand? A.: Make no mention of the Truth you know. Q.: And of what do you speak? A.: Of the falsehood of the falsehoods they understand. Q.: And how? A.: By telling, in the light of the Truth, a falsehood about the falsehoods they understand. Q.: What falsehood do you tell them? A.: That one of them speaks truly, the other not. Q.: And which of them speaks the truth? A. The one that is not alive. Q. And which of them speaks the untruth? A. The one that is alive. Q.: And which of them is alive? A.: The one that runs for high office. Q.: And how his he named? A. His name is Antichrist.
For more on religion in politics and our President, take a look at http://www.churchofcriticalthinking.com
Then in 1988, when we won with the Bush senior campaign and carried the highest total of evangelical votes ever in American history, we lost as we always do -- the Republicans -- we lost the Jewish vote and the Hispanic vote and all those votes. We lost the Catholic vote. We were the first modern presidency to win an election and it was a landslide and not win the Catholic vote. It was barely, but we lost the Catholic vote.
How did we do it? We carried 82 percent or 83 percent of the evangelical vote. I remember when it was all over-- this was one of the reasons I got a job in the White House -- but I remember when it was all over, there was great shock from me and others saying, "Whoa, this is unhealthy." We immediately began going after the Catholic vote.
While at the same time, we were frightened by the fact that we lost all these votes and still won the White House. The message did come home. My God, you can win the White House with nothing but evangelicals if you can get enough of them, if you get them all, and they're a huge number. ...
The Jesus Factor
White Catholics, as the central swing voters, will probably determine the outcome of this election. If we get them to vote their pocketbooks, we win; if the Repubs get them on traditional values, they win.
This could not be farther from the truth, and represents old-school political thinking. The Catholics are irrelevant. The Jews are irrelevant. The Moslems are irrelevant. And the Episcopals (the faith of Bush senior) are irrelevant.
The election is about one demographic, and one demographic only. The evangelicals. This is not a joke, and it needs to reconstitute all of our thinking about modern politics in America.
Look at my blog for confirmation (If you already read the Jesus Factor post above, ignore).
By rights, we should not even be having this discussion in the United States. It is profoundly unAmerican to spend this much of a presidential campaign discussing the candidates' religion.
One of the things I'll never forget about Bill Bradley, when he was running for the nomination, was his telling a reporter (can't remember who) who had asked him about his faith that it was none of the reporter's business and none of the public's business. It hurt Bradley and was undoubtedly one of the things that defeated his candidacy.
This is just wrong. However, recognizing that means nothing, because apparently this is the way America sees everything now - the right has shaped this entire discourse. We are hopelessly entangled in these religious disputes in every aspect of our lives, and especially our government. I don't understand it, though I remember well how it was when Kennedy was running. There was a joke in my grade school (I think we had maybe 3 Catholics there total) that was a riddle: "What did Kennedy say when he telegraphed the Pope after the election? Pack your bags, you're coming to America."
That was more an expression, I believe, of a stupid and baseless fear that some Protestants had at that time - an expression of their institutional anti-Catholic bias. The political/religious discourse today is different. Today it is all about the extent to which religion is going to be part and parcel of our government. This is nothing less than a very real battle over the future of this country - will it continue to be a secular democracy (which it arguably still is) or will it become a Protestant theocracy?
(cont'd)
Recently, she announced she was going to vote for Bush after steadily denouncing him since 2000. I prodded & got the impression that it came after the archbishop announced that Kerry was not eligible for Communion because of his stances in violation of Church doctrine.
Over the past couple weeks I've worked into our conversations that Kerry was being singled out by a conservative archbishop who didn't apply the same standard on abortion for Repub governors like Schwartzneigger & Pataki, & Kerry favored civil unions, rather than gay marriage. This has won her back.
I relay this story as example of an intervention that we'll need to do with our devout but moderate Catholic acquaintainces to keep them in the Democratic camp.
Skydiver, what gets me is how the evangelicals have gone especially political once more, after periods of hiatus when they seem to treat politicians with some disdain. Maybe this time it's the fact that Bush Jr is 'one of them' that makes the difference.
Gatrios, I've never thought Bill Moyers tried to hide his bias. But, big BUT, it's really interesting how many Repubs he has on his program these days. Did you see the report on the Medicare Bill last night? It was a Repub bill, of course, and almost all of the people he interviewed and featured were Repubs.
I honestly do not believe that there was much of an authentic religious issue with Kennedy's Catholicism - it was a question of Protestant bias. But today there are authentic religious issues that have been forced on us by those who have figured out that the can obtain power through their alliance with Evanglical Protestantism.
This is why this type of discussion is dangerously disingenuous. This isn't about Kerry's religion. This is really about the Bush Republicans' religion and their intention to have their beliefs codified into the law of the land.
thunk, I think that Atrios main objection to Hagerty's piece is that she is, consciously or not, spreading the theme that conservative,church going, abortion hating people are "moral". While liberal folks, whether or not they attend church, who are pro choice, are " cafeteria catholics." That phrase sounds like a smear to me. Whether or not Hagerty meant it as such, that's what it is. Atrios is right not to let her or anybody else get away with this.
Truly italics tags are a mixed blessing.
I thought the NPR piece was pretty bad, but what do you expect from a religion reporter? In my experience, this is not emblematic of NPR coverage, which is still definitely slanted towards the left. If you really think it's conservative, that just means you're defining the policial spectrum in a completely unrealistic way.
One of the things, though, that Atrios didn't hit on which I think he should have, were those statistics cited by Hagerty:
By the Reagan years, only 46 percent of Catholics identified themselves as Democrats, down from 82 percent in 1960.
I would guess that part of the reason for this was that some of the more liberal Catholics actually stopped being Catholics. The ones who were left were more likely to be Republican. In other words, part of the issue is that Democrats stopped being Catholics, not just that Catholics stopped being Democrats.
Another Bruce, truly Haloscan suxx0rz. But that's another story.
thunk-did you even read the post?
gatrios-you have a slur for a name and you haven't heard of Kwitney: we rest our case.
Here we get the punchline - those who are moral vote Republican. Those who are not vote Democrat. Kerry is immoral, simply because he doesn't believe all of his personal religious beliefs should be legislated.
Also, I really don't see where Atrios got this from. Where is this said or implied in the sections he quoted? Don't just tell me that Hagerty believes it to be true, show me where it comes through in her reporting.
I find this whole World Institute thing very troubling and very frightening. That NPR has decided that it needs someone with that particular background ought to clue everyone in on what's really going on and what has been going on for some time here, but more quietly. It is a concerted effort by the Evangelical Right to attain power in America and hold onto it through capturing the media, the presidency, the Congress and generally to take and hold America. It is a religious war. It was started by the right. Many on the right who have gotten on board with this are not religious, but have realized that pretending to be Evangelical christians can buy them power through votes and through ongoing propaganda campaigns they can hold onto that power.
These people - like Hagerty and the entire World Journalism Institute - are fucking dangerous. I don't like anything about any of this.
Isn’t Haggerty also flat-out wrong about when and how Kerry requested the annulment?
IWRC, Kerry and Julia were legally separated right before he was elected LTGOV of MA in 1982, then divorced in 1988.
According to what we found on Google, the annulment was requested in 1996, not 1997 (actually, according to Julia, in response to her request for more alimony the previous year; a claim Kerry naturally denies). Although Julia has been quite supportive of her husband's bid for the presidency, she is not Catholic and apparently felt quite insulted by the annulment bid.
Accounts vary on whether the annulment was granted (but anyone who knows anything about how the church really functions knows that it's a cold day in hell before the Church denies annulments to rich people).
People who go to Mass on weekdays aren't "particularly hardcore conservative Catholics" as you've described them. They are devout Catholics who get something out of starting their mornings going to Mass. The fact that they do so doesn't necessarily say anything about their political views. That smacks of bias.
Reffie:
As a Catholic, I can pretty much promise you that Catholics who attend weekday masses tend to be conservative, theologically, if not politically, by and large. Not all Catholics who do so are conservative, but that wasn't what Atrios said anyway. And to take the wekday mass crowd as a random sample is highly disingenuous; either identify it as a weekday mass, with all that that entails, or (better) do the interview on a sunday.
As far as the report in general goes, how dare she call me a cafeteria catholic! Fuck her! No one believes EVERYTHING the Pope says, and they never have. It's not part of Catholicism to do so. Even the 'papal infallibility' dealie only has been used 3 times in history, 2 of them by the same pope who declared it (Pio Nono). If people like Hagerty understood catholicism at all, they would know that the traditions of obediance are balanced by a tradition of inquiry in MANY orders and lay organizations. I am not a bad catholic for holding the views I do on the state's right to limit personal behavior.
I think Barbie the True Christian and Fake Journalist needs a good spankin'.
I'll make an eternal impact on her behind, that'll help her glorify the Christ child fer sure.
And these people who have grabbed power through their Evangelical chrisitianity, whether real or feigned, do not want Kerry to win this election. It is clear to them that Kerry understands the separation of church and state. It is that separation that defeats the Religious Right and they know it and they are fighting it tooth and nail.
Dave,
In my experience, this is not emblematic of NPR coverage, which is still definitely slanted towards the left. If you really think it's conservative, that just means you're defining the policial spectrum in a completely unrealistic way.
Just curious, but could you point out a few examples of NPR's left wing slant, or even where no opposing conservative view is presented? Or is this just a knee-jerk expression of what has become the conventional "of course NPR is liberal... everyone knows that!" kind of thing?
Two editorial cartoons dealing with religion and politics.
Underneath there is a "contractor" priest
How the decision to invade Iraq was reached
kelley b.: The whole point is, reffie, that since the Bu$h $yndicate and the Wepublicans got control of their budget, NPR has been a very conservative network- all while trying to pretend to being a bastion of liberal thought.
While I agree that NPR's commentaries have been decidedly tilting rightward, I don't attribute it to the GOP having control of the pursestrings. Less than 2% of NPR's budget comes from government sources these days, if I recall.
No, I think it's the insidious "we have to look like the other guys" syndrome, as they shrink from accusations of being "liberal."
I cut off my monthly bank draft to my local NPR station after the commentary (I forget who presented it) on Spain's "appeasement" in the wake of the Madrid bombings. No more turkee.
OT: Turkee give preznit BJ
.
I'm pretty sure just about every important religious leader (including the pope) spoke out rather enthusiastically against the war in Iraq.
So I think pretty much everyone who supported the invasion is a bad Catholic/Muslim/Buddhist/etc.
But I agree with the people on TV. Let's leave out Holy Wars and Crusades when we talk about religion and politics.
That's why I don't give $ to NPR anymore. As an organization, it has become so sensitive to being labeled "liberal", so as to not lose it's paltry funding, it's usually the opposite. F them.
I e-mailed NPR's ombudsman with these comments:
Address the **fundamentalist** Christian influenceof Barbara Bradley Hagerty, as evidenced in her clearly biased Nader piece about who's a "real" Catholic.
Among other things, the people she interviewed from a Washington parish are hard-core conservatives attending a **weekday** Mass, not a Sunday one. How representative is that?
She is on the record as saying:
"Christian journalists must decide to make God their primary audience."
Really? I thought I and the rest of the people with radios tuned in were her primary audience.
She goes on:
"Journalists will experience a conflict between seeking to glorify themselves and seeking to glorify God, she said."
Is NPR's mission to "glorify God"?
And, she expects to spread this word in your offices.
"What's important is that [one's colleagues] begin to think differently about Christianity. And I actually think that's what we're supposed to do as Christians. We're supposed to draw people, through the power of attraction, to Jesus Christ just as He drew people to Himself."
Information from the website:
http://www.evangelicalnews.org/b....org/
bp121.html
And she is affiliated with the Christian far right's World Journalism Institute, who's mission statement is, or was,
"To accompany reporting with practical commentary on current events and issues from a perspective committed to the final authority of the Bible as the inerrant written word of God."
http://web.archive.org/web/20010...com/
mission.asp
Is this the normal editorial angle you expect to have at NPR?
Here's the link:
http://www.npr.org/contact/
colum...ersonId=2781801
As for this issue in general, a columnist at the Dallas Morning News did a similar column on Kerry. I immediately e-mailed him and pointed out the double standard w/Ahhnold and Pataki, and the lack of similar standard on death penalty, etc.
He said "that's an interesting point."
That was his entire e-mail body copy. In essence, he was saying, no, I don't give a damn that I'm helping to spread further a double standard.
So you wingnuts who posted above, this is about clear religious bias.
Hi skydiver:
White Catholics, as the central swing voters, will probably determine the outcome of this election. If we get them to vote their pocketbooks, we win; if the Repubs get them on traditional values, they win. (Me)
The election is about one demographic, and one demographic only. The evangelicals.(Skydiver)
Dissection of electoral politics requires analysis of rigorous empirical data, not argumentation through generalized statements. Notice I use the term, swing vote, which (from what I remember from my graduate school days in political science) denotes a large block of voters who change sides in large enough numbers, from over 3 presidential elections to effect the outcome.
Now, you're right in a sense: fundamentalists were the driving force in Bush's numbers. However, Bush lost the popular vote by over 500,000 & without the shenanigans of his brother & the Repubs, would have lost Florida. So, in a fair election count, Bush would have been back in Texas.
Second, your blog just speaks to the 2000 election, whereas I'm addressing patterns since Nixon, when white Catholics came into play, rather than voting overwhelmingly Democratic. Furthermore, the Bushites speak openly that if they can not make sizeable gains among Hispanic Catholics - the fastest growing segment of the population - the Repub. Party will become a permanent minority party. The latter, disputes your thesis.
Jeffraham, LOL, I think I needed a little light relief in such a news-heavy week.
Come to think of it, where's Woot with some Hagerty boobies? Anyone?
"So, as I said, facts and truth are replaced by Facts and Truth."
Oh please. What she's saying is simply that her reporting is informed by her values--and your commentary isn't? In fact, I find Ms. Hagerty's statement refreshingly free of the simple-minded cliches about "bias" that so pervade both the right and this Web site.
"Mandatory statement -- of course religious people should not be excluded from journalism."
Would you mind explaining why? Absolutely nothing in the foregoing posting indicates that this statement is anything but empty boilerplate. I'd sooner believe George Bush when he claims to care about giving Iraqis their "freedom."
"But, Hagerty's reporting is so biased and slanted - though done very cleverly - that she should not have her job at the liberal NPR."
So her problem isn't that she's biased, but that it's not the "right" sort of bias in a reporter for a news organization that you somehow think should be your mouthpiece? Actually, it's not at all clear to me that she's "clever"; she may in fact be naive. You're reasoning seems to be (1) she's a devout and theologically conservative Christian; ergo (2) anything that gives aid and comfort to the right in this piece must be some clever Religious Right conspiracy. In response, let me say immediately that I actually have problems with the piece myself, *because* I am both an active Christian and a liberal Democrat. As plenty of people on the Christian left [Allen Brill, say] can point out to you [and have, albeit so far with futility], the *big* problem with the piece is that it tends to give too much credence to certain conservative Catholics who seek to seize the mantle of "orthodoxy" for themselves and denigrate their opponents as "cafeteria" Catholics--when in fact they are just as finicky [and arguably more dishonest about it] in their selective appropriation of church teachings. In short, what she's reporting on isn't Christians trying to impose their views on secularists so much as certain Christians seeking to impose their views on *other Christians*. Moderate and liberal Christians--Catholic, Protestant, even Southern Baptist [!]--have been fighting these people for years--with, I might add, no help whatsoever from antireligious bigots such as yourself.
Hagerty clearly comes out of a fairly conservative background herself, and, I suspect, gives the "right" a bit more credence than I'd like to see because she's seduced by their use of certain buzzwords--a problem, BTW, not uncommon among liberal secular reporters. But there's nothing wrong with having a reporter who is actually willing to take the religious right seriously [She needs to learn to take the religious *left* more seriously, but, judging from previous commenters, she's open to that--certainly more open to that than *you* are]. Theologically conservative Christians [not the same thing as politically conservative, BTW] are a major group in Ame
Also, I really don't see where Atrios got this from. Where is this said or implied in the sections he quoted? Don't just tell me that Hagerty believes it to be true, show me where it comes through in her reporting.
O.K., I'll try to get this italic thingy right. Remember that Hagerty is supposedly delivering some kind of expert analysis. Here is the key graph
HAGERTY: Those Catholics who hold to absolute truth follow the conservative moral teachings of the Vatican, and they overwhelmingly vote Republican, much as evangelical white Protestants do. But less orthodox Catholics, sometimes called cafeteria Catholics, gravitate toward the liberal side of church teachings, just as many mainline Protestants do, on the death penalty, on social welfare and justice issues, on war and peace. For these Catholics, White says, John Kerry is a very comfortable fit.
This is an outrageous comment. As I have mentioned, the phrase "cafeteria Catholic" is a smear. But look at the first sentence. "Those Catholics who hold to absolute truth follow the conservative moral teachings of the Vatican, and they overwhelmingly vote Republican." That statement is about as subtle as a smack on the face. Why doesn't absolute truth include opposition to the death penalty? Or heeding the Church's call for social justice for the poor? In other words, Why does Hagerty think that conservative Republicans have a lock the "absolute truth", while Kerry supporters are "cafeteria Catholics"?
all that talk about Jesus and Christianity as related to journalistic ethics and performance, makes me ill.
What's Jesus got to do with it? Secular journalistic values should work just fine. Truth is truth. Facts are facts.
Just do your job fairly,thoroughly, and well, honey. Save your Jesus-speak for when you're not at work.
The election is about one demographic, and one demographic only. The evangelicals. This is not a joke, and it needs to reconstitute all of our thinking about modern politics in America.
If you really believe this, you can't be too optimistic about the Democrats' chances. The evangelicals are going to vote for Bush, aren't they. The Democrats have to do their best to get everyone else.
Anyway, I agree with the guy who said that the public debate is becoming more and more about how much of a role religion will have in our public discourse and life. The secular side is losing, unfortunately.
"Those Catholics who hold to absolute truth follow the conservative moral teachings of the Vatican, and they overwhelmingly vote Republican, much as evangelical white Protestants do. But less orthodox Catholics, sometimes called cafeteria Catholics, gravitate toward the liberal side of church teachings, just as many mainline Protestants do, on the death penalty, on social welfare and justice issues, on war and peace."
Isn't it a shame that all those "sometimes called cafeteria Catholics" who gravitate to mere frippery like social welfare, justic, peace and who are so frivolous as to oppose the death penalty aren't more like "Those [virtuous] Catholics who hold to absolute truth follow the conservative moral teachings of the Vatican". and who thus "vote Republican". You know, like the ones who testify that martyred nuns and Cardinals are terrorists and spies.
NPR is short for Non-stop Promotion of Republicans. It's not superior to CNN except that they don't sell themselves with sex. Babs H. is a disgrace to public broadcasting. We can look forward to the day, long delayed, when she leaves to work for POX or MSNBC full time. It's what she's grooming herself for.
There is apparently an idea spreading through the Right blogosphere that Atrios is anti-religion. In the last few weeks there have been numerous posts here by commenters who have come here for that reason alone - to attack Atrios on the question of religion.
It is just exactly like the whole WJI agenda. Truth is something that the Right "receives," as opposed to something that is reached through clear-eyed analysis which is what Atrios really does. The Right has received the notion that we are attacking religion. That's the same tactic used by the Evangelical christians against everyone who disagrees with them.
As an educated Catholic, I can tell you that the media don't know enough about religion -- any religion -- to write intelligently about any religious point. If this reporter's bosses knew the first thing about religion they wouldn't have assigned her to this story anyway. She's got an agenda and she's working it -- and her bosses don't know enough about the subject matter to edit her.
Boy, that drives me nuts.
Experience has taught me that any story about the Roman Catholic religion in the mainstream media will be about 80 percent wrong. They'll probably get the names, titles, dates, and place names right. But after that, well . . . Adherents of other religions, is your experience about the same?
Clinton did very well with the evangelicals in 1996...I believe he captured 40%. The Dems have the capability of capturing Evangelical votes, if they focus on it.
The fact is, Bush lost the Catholics in 2000, so they really can't be considered the swing vote that put him over, nor do I think the Bushites are really targeting Catholics with their policies. If they pick up the conservative Catholics, all the better (in fact, they do well with religious folk of all ilk, Jews included). But the reality is that BushCo. is a religious and political evangelical machine. We must confront them on their own terms, at least as much as we confront them on political terms. That's my point.
Hispanic Catholics may become a factor in the future. They are not the issue in 2004.
Oh, and I am VERY optimistic about the Dems chances in 2004. I have to be, in order to get up in the morning.
This is such a simple strategy! In three parts.
1 Kerry isn't Catholic enough! Not Catholic enough!
2 They're hopin he says :" Yes I am. I'm real Catholic"
3. You wouldn't vote for a guy who takes marching orders from the Pope, would'ya ?
Simple divide and conquer, using fundy anti-Catholic prejudice.
"...who like their morality roots small..."
"roots"? who transcribed this peice?
"writ small".
Anyway, NPR does a really crappy of editing their conservative reporters and commentators. Cokey Roberts in particular, is usually good for a howler (like when she suggested some kind of numinous connection between the Columbia disaster and the September 11 hijackings "No Bob, I don't think that the Shuttle was the target of a terror attack, but this is further evidence that the world is dangerous and frightening place, not ice and soft and pretty like it was when I was a little girl, and we should all support the President if we want to defeat the forces of darkness".)
By the same token, it is really time for Daniel Schorr to pack it in.
When Christians call themselves victims in America, I laugh my ass off. It's one of the m ost idiotic things one person can say.
Now did a long piece on religious groups who marched last week in Washington. The idea that people of faith, even all evangelicals agree with Bush and the right are dead wrong.
Haggerty's hidden assertion that Kerry's catholicism was somehow out of step with what people believe is insane. Most parishes are filled with pro-choice, pro-divorce members. Kerry is clearly in the mainstream of Catholic practice in America, while the conservatives are out of step.
If you deny communion to Kerry, you need to deny it to half or more of most parishes. The Catholic right is a clear minority. While most respect the pope, few follow his edicts, and this is a major issue in theb Catholic Church.
There is a clear reason many Catholics left the Democratic party, social mobility and race. Like in the South, the GOP has capitalized on racial division between white ethincs and minorities. As white catholics made more money and moved into the suburbs, they embraced the GOP mantra, especially the one which said the niggers were taking their money.
So, this is no surprise. It is fundmentally dishonest to suggest that the shift in party loyalty was due to increasing conservatism on religious issues.
Carter:
Second, your blog just speaks to the 2000 election, whereas I'm addressing patterns since Nixon, when white Catholics came into play, rather than voting overwhelmingly Democratic.
This, again, is my point. Your pitch for the Catholic vote is outmoded thinking. It's simply irrelevant, or certainly not dispositive, if BushCo. got elected without it. Oh, and your snarky comment about requiring "rigorous analysis of empirical data" doesn't get you any further to the truth.
This is such a simple strategy! In three parts.
1 Kerry isn't Catholic enough! Not Catholic enough!
2 They're hopin he says :" Yes I am. I'm real Catholic"
3. You wouldn't vote for a guy who takes marching orders from the Pope, would'ya ?
Simple divide and conquer, using fundy anti-Catholic prejudice.
Tena, saying Atrios is anti-religion because he occasionally posts about its worst excesses makes as much sense as saying that smacking the little shit who puts gang graffiti on your building makes you anti-child.
I love kids. I just hate that little fucking punk, you know?
A.
Think about it for a second, using your rigorous analytical powers. Who cares about the Catholic vote (from a Dem perspective), if winning it in 2000 STILL didn't get us the White House? The point is, we need to get the Evangelicals. And we need to use religious jiu-jitsu to turn the gospel against Bush... He's bastardized Evangelical principles and Christian principles. We must not be afraid to engage the discourse (which, in their principles, need not be oppressive or even "evangelical" per se) with them and show them why BushCo. is the wrong kind of born-again to lead this country
I'm going to get on my high horse about the "moral absolutist" crowd. I think that it takes a psychologically sick amount of arrogance to presume that anyone can know what is absolutely true. I also think that history has shown pretty convicingly that nothing is more dangerous than a fool wbo is convinced that the truth is his special province. This cuts across political boundaries and applies to both the right (fascism) and the left (communism). It also applies to all religions. Please note, Christians, that Jesus saved his most passionate wrath for the Pharisees, the true hypocrites of his time. These guys "knew" they had the truth. They weren't about to let an upstart carpenter tell them differently.
Those Catholics who hold to absolute truth follow the conservative moral teachings of the Vatican, and they overwhelmingly vote Republican, much as evangelical white Protestants do. But less orthodox Catholics, sometimes called cafeteria Catholics, gravitate toward the liberal side of church teachings, just as many mainline Protestants do, on the death penalty, on social welfare and justice issues, on war and peace. For these Catholics, White says, John Kerry is a very comfortable fit.
This statement is internally self-contradictory. Ostensibly, the Vatican's "absolute truth" on the death penalty, on social welfare and justice issues, on war and peace, is the liberal side.
Athenae - I agree. What is most upsetting about this whole thing is that we have very little if any neutral ground left from which to try to make our case - we have all but lost the religion war. We are going to have to fight for the constitution from inside hostile territory, unfortunately.
By the same token, it is really time for Daniel Schorr to pack it in.
uri
After this morning it's pretty apparent that he's doing his best to stay off of George Bush's enemies list.
Sometimes it's best to retire on your laurels instead of falling on your prat.
I still say we give these people their own state and let them have their little theocratic republic and sit around and write NO GURLZ and NO GAYS on the door and sing and dance and chant about how big and bad and white they are. I'm tired of them and their bullshit and I don't want to fight and defeat them so much as I just want them to go away.
Go on, fundies. Scram.
You know what else I'm sick of? People telling me I need to reach out to them and convince them and blah, blah, blah, meet them where they're at. They aren't in the least bit interested in meeting me where I'm at. They're interested in making me afraid, making me ashamed of myself, and telling me who to blame, and in order to meet them on their level most of us here would have to tunnel 399 feet through solid rock until the flames of hell were licking our faces. Fuck 'em. They can build themselves a ladder and they can climb back up here if they want to chat.
A.
Mmm. Mooser, that does rather come to mind scanning thru the Hagerty article.
I still say we give these people their own state and let them have their little theocratic republic and sit around and write NO GURLZ and NO GAYS on the door and sing and dance and chant about how big and bad and white they are.
Texas?
What I'm really waiting for is for the fundamentalists, evangelicals, conservative Catholics, Mormons, etc, etc... to feel safe to go back to their ancient tradition of going after each other hammer and tongs. It's going to happen, those groups are still promoting their hate against each other.
One day when you've got time to kill and are feeling really strong go into one of the many "christian" bookstores. Just about any one of them will have books saying why one or the other of the competing religons is a satanic cult who eat babies. That is when they aren't accusing Jews of doing that.
We might get to relive a bit of that wonderful 16th and 17th century history of constant religous warfare. Then we'll know why the founders were so eager to disestablish the new country.
Remember, protestants, Mel Gibson thinks you're going to hell no matter how much richer you make him by watching his snuff film.
I still say we give these people their own state and let them have their little theocratic republic
Yeah, but where do we put them? Even Antartica is too good for them. I used to think Texas was logical, but after seeing pictures of Big Bend and bluebonnets, I'm no longer willing to give up on the place.
I heard a solution to the Palestinian crisis one time that made me laugh. "Let's give 'em South Dakota."
According to today's Indianapolis Star, a local Catholic High School is pulling the same stunt with Gov. Joe Kernan. Of course, it also happens to be an election year with one of Bush's lackeys, Mitch Daniels, running against Kernan. (Click on homepage link to read the story)
"..Give unto Caesar that which are Caesar's and unto god that which is god's.."
Wich loosely translated means for them to not worry about giving or doing something necessary for maintaining the secular world if the overall intentions of that effort are not meant to be evil, but simply constructive. The news does not need to be religiously tainted. It can remain secular and not be anti-god.
The notion that they must see it through a religious filter means censorship and unobjective news pure and simple.
My suggestion is that you have the freedom to worship as you choose but not when that freedom interferes with my own. The exoricise of your freedom of religion is not absolute.
MYOB'
.
Athenae:
You know what else I'm sick of? People telling me I need to reach out to them and convince them and blah, blah, blah, meet them where they're at.
This is dangerous, just writing them off. A similar argument has been advanced by people who say "don't fight the pledge issue, because if you win, you just incite the fundamentalists even MORE politically."
We must engage them, if not to convince them of our secular approach to life, or to get comfortable with their theology, at least to try to WIN politically. One way to do it effectively, to my mind, is to show them why, scripturally, the approach of BushCo. is wrong. I understand that you find their biases and faith offensive; there are certainly elements that I find offensive, particularly as a Jew. Nonetheless, the benefit of a free democratic society is the right to believe as you wish, and the concomitant burden is to politically engage with your adversaries in a way that can advance your own agenda. They certainly do it to us; we MUST be willing to do it to them.
skydiver - I have high hopes for the Democrats, too. I just hate having to wade through all of the shit that the Democrats are going to have to wade through to get there. It's going to be like this nonstop until November. *sigh*
Roll up your pants and get your ankles wet. It's democracy, baby.
HAGERTY: Those Catholics who hold to absolute truth follow the conservative moral teachings of the Vatican, and they overwhelmingly vote Republican, much as evangelical white Protestants do. But less orthodox Catholics, sometimes called cafeteria Catholics, gravitate toward the liberal side of church teachings, just as many mainline Protestants do, on the death penalty, on social welfare and justice issues, on war and peace. For these Catholics, White says, John Kerry is a very comfortable fit.
This is an outrageous comment. As I have mentioned, the phrase "cafeteria Catholic" is a smear.
But they are sometimes called "cafeteria Catholics." I guess she should have made it clear that it was a derrogatory label, but I don't see how this implies that they are immoral.
But look at the first sentence. "Those Catholics who hold to absolute truth follow the conservative moral teachings of the Vatican, and they overwhelmingly vote Republican." That statement is about as subtle as a smack on the face. Why doesn't absolute truth include opposition to the death penalty?
But she doesn't say that those who hold to "absolute truth" support the death penalty. She's saying that those who hold to "absolute truth" support Republicans. They often do so in spite of Republican support for the death penalty, not because of it.
In other words, Why does Hagerty think that conservative Republicans have a lock the "absolute truth", while Kerry supporters are "cafeteria Catholics"?
But where does she say that? She's saying that the Republicans have a lock on the conservative Catholic crowd. She's not saying that Republicans have a lock on "absolute truth," just that those who believe in the "absolute truth" of Church doctrine tend to support the Republicans. Those Catholics who dissent in some areas from the Vatican's stances are more likely to be Democrats.
That you see this as a statement of morality seems overly defensive, in my opinion.
Oh, crap.
Let me try that last part again:
In other words, Why does Hagerty think that conservative Republicans have a lock the "absolute truth", while Kerry supporters are "cafeteria Catholics"?
But where does she say that? What she's actually saying that the Republicans have a lock on the conservative Catholic crowd. She's not saying that Republicans have a lock on "absolute truth," just that those who believe in the "absolute truth" of Church doctrine tend to support the Republicans. Those Catholics who dissent in some areas from the Vatican's stances are more likely to be Democrats.
That you see this as a statement of morality seems overly defensive, in my opinion.
Skydiver, I'm perfectly willing to "engage with them politically." I'll work with them, sure. And I'm not talking about not fighting them on issues like the pledge etc. I'll fight them. I simply won't pretend I continue to see any value in "dialogue" or any possiblity of convincing them that their bigotry and my tolerance have any kind of anything in common.
I'm not willing to sit down for tea and pretend that they are anything other than what they are, which is a bunch of homophobic xenophobic racists who use God as a weapon to beat on their beloved meek and less fortunate and imply that anybody who believes that religion is not some kind of spiritual WWF is simply insufficiently "orthodox."
They've hated me for a long time, because I was raised a Catholic, became a liberal, vote as a Democrat. The end result being that I hate them right back, and that's childish and unproductive, and I'm kind of sorry, but not really. I will dance in my high high heels on a bar at midnight on November 7 when the American people tell them to take their toys and go the fuck home.
A.
The Rise of the Religious Right in the Republican Party
The positive out of this is now I get to say, "I'm sure you respect my beliefs as much I as respect your beliefs" .... oh, by the way, I'm agnostic.
Athenae:
My emotions are with you. My political sense says that calling people "a bunch of homophobic xenophobic racists" is not really the way to capture hearts and minds. I ask noone to condone hateful beliefs, but I do believe in my heart that religion--like secular compassion--can be a motivating force for good, as well as evil. The challenge of the modern political landscape that the Dems haven't stepped up to is how to engage and harness religious zeal. It's real, it's part of our society, and it's only growing. We cannot ignore it, nor should we simply belittle it, lest we find ourselves drowning our sorrows on election night, while they refrain from dancing on the bar.
Skydiver - Oh, I know, and I'm ready for the fight. We have some interesting allies. Mr. Tena, who is a self-described independent, which just means he splits the ticket on local races and has voted Repug on the national level pretty consistently. He is totally disgusted with the Evangelical Christian hijacking of the Repug party. He isn't alone.
Hi skydiver:
Your pitch for the Catholic vote is outmoded thinking. It's simply irrelevant, or certainly not dispositive, if BushCo. got elected without it. Oh, and your snarky comment about requiring "rigorous analysis of empirical data" doesn't get you any further to the truth.
I'm afraid we're talking past each other. My points are 1) that there are tons of rigorous studies with data & statistical analysis available that break down trends & group voting patterns & 2) one can not define reality on the basis of one presidential election but have to look at trends over time.
That said, I agree with you that its a good idea to rigorously court evangelicals & speaking their language & in terms of their life perspective, as Clinton did, is great. I basically feel the same for Catholics.
However, being inclusive should not mean not abandoning our core progressive beliefs but rather finding common ground with them in the context of Christian beliefs & progressives' morality. Also, showing how their economic interests are addressed by the progressive agenda, which are based on Christian morality, rather than the every man for himself Republican philosophy.
Oops - I keep posting incomplete sentences and I know better - hell, I was an English major. Just drop the "who" after "Tena,..."
That should fix it.
The Rise of the Religious Right in the Republican Party
"The Republican Party of Texas affirms that the United States is a Christian nation."
Texas Republican Party Platform, 2002
After doing years of polling on the subject, Zogby has concluded that there is no "Catholic vote." Furthermore, Catholics lack a common "Catholic" identity; they use other criteria to identify themselves, just like other Americans. The vast majority of Catholics do NOT vote for candidates on the basis of an issue, like abortion, stem cell research, the death penalty, etc.
But if Zogby's research doesn't convince you, venture in to a Suburban Catholic Church some Sunday. Look at the family size--how many have more than three kids? Count the number of couples with fraternal twins. Do you suppose any of these families practice birth control or have resorted to in vitro?
Every wonder why the Catholic church leaders who want to ban Kerry from receiving Communion never rail against fertility clinics that routinely wrest frozen pre-born babies from their petri dishes? Or why Operation Rescue doesn't harass lab workers over at the local fertility clinic?
Carter: We're friends. I agree with you. I guess my main point is I strongly believe that the Dems are not doing nearly enough to recognize that since the early 90s (I guess I would point to the Contract on America) the Evangelical constituency has emerged as the elephant in the living room in terms of money, power, and organization. Of course we should not neglect the progressive base. But whoever is devising strategy needs to realize that the SINGLE largest factor why Bush is in the White House today (other than the Supreme Court) is the Evangelical community. If the Dems do not address that, they will not win back the White House.
Hey, did you hear? They found the remains of the man known as Yeshua, referred to by some as the Christ. They were in what was believed to a wine cellar near Judea. In the bones was a note written in Aramaic on very old Zerox paper, which stated the following: "If you can't tell the difference between a metaphor and a real historical event, go to the New World in about 2,000 years--you'll have lots of company. Remember only this: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you for we are all one. The rest is politics."
Glad that's cleared up.
+++
Skydiver - We cannot win the Evangelicals over because we are adamant about the separation of church and state and they are fighting to get rid of that separation. We cannot win them over - there is no point in trying. We have got to go forward strongly with the constitution behind us and let the chips fall where they may.
We cannot win the Evangelical vote on religious issues. We may pick up some Evangelical votes on economic issues and perhaps other issue, but not religious. It's impossible.
Separation of church and state is absolutely necessary. Kerry needs to represent that strongly -- maybe even more stongly than Kennedy did.
In that he would be Bush's opposite and a lot of people who vote with a conscience, and who are not "born again Methodist" [whatever the hell that is, and which most normal Methodists are not] will understand that it is a more American position.
Scorpio
Eccentricity
Yeah Dave, I know about italics, and haloscan.
O.K. maybe (just maybe) we are being a little overly sensitive here. I understand that transcripts can be a little tricky. As compared to writing something, a transcript can't use clever context defining devices like the quotation marks you use around "absolute truth" and "cafeteria Catholics." Having said that, the problem with these statements are that they seem to be a repeat of Republican talking points in the guise of expert analysis. Why does Kerry have to define himself to the American people as a "good Catholic"? Kerry has been smart enough to say in no uncertain terms that he believes in the separation of church and state. It hasn't appeared to hurt him in the polls. So what basis is there for this statement?
This is the kind of crap analysis that I so much hate in someone like Cokie Roberts. They pretend to be some kind of fount of wisdom. I honestly don't mind partisan viewpoints, just don't try to pretend it's anything else.
Tena: You've hit the nail. BushCo. made the last vote a referendum on religion, and the Dems didn't even see it coming. If BushCo. can dictate the terms of that religious referendum, we'll lose every time in modern day America. EVERY TIME. However, it's not true that we can't make it otherwise. Clinton won 40%. Evangelicals are NOT uniformly Ralph Reed wannabes.
Believe it or not, some actually see their religion as an expression of compassion. The contours of that compassion may differ from that of your average secular humanist, but it's the 40% that Clinton spoke to in his "I feel your pain" voice that the Dems must recapture. If they don't, then we're doomed, plain and simple. I still believe that one way of doing that, for many Evangelicals, is to engage them on their terms, as well as ours. Fight both fronts.
Going forward strongly with the Constitution means nothing if it is rewritten by the moral majority.
Why does Kerry have to define himself to the American people as a "good Catholic"? Kerry has been smart enough to say in no uncertain terms that he believes in the separation of church and state.
Hey, Bruce, we don't disagree here. Hagerty's analysis was crappy; I just didn't see any justification for Atrios' comment "Here we get the punchline - those who are moral vote Republican. Those who are not vote Democrat. Kerry is immoral, simply because he doesn't believe all of his personal religious beliefs should be legislated."
Skydiver, I know you're right, I know. I'm just pissed off today and not thinking. Grrr. I'm going to go eat a raw steak and punch things, and then I'll be ready for rational discussion again. 
A.
Skydiver, I know you're right, I know...
Music to my ears. Now if I could just get everyone else to listen, I'D BE A BENEVOLENT KING, I TELLS YA!
friggin I-talics.
This blog is so blatently lame and wrongheaded. We are in the midst of one of the greatest military scandals to hit the airwaves and the press -- the torture of Iraqi prisoners by U.S. and British troops -- and we have Atrios here yammering on and on about the "outrage" of Christian journalists.
You are so transparent, Atrios, so limp and small. Right in the middle of one of the greatest outrages and tragedies in American history, you just blandly ignore it, gossiping instead about NPR journalists, hoping the other ugly reality will go away, just like you ignore all the atrocities of Israel, which created this mess in the first place. Go on, Atrios, yammering and gossping, and just hope no one will notice what you leave out.
You are not "liberal," you're a hypocrite, a conservative whiner and avoider who thinks he is doing the world a favor by outting the "horror" of Christian journalists.
O, the horror of Christian journalists! (Just look the other way from those torture photos, and the breaking outrage, folks.)
As if, in this particular moment of time, that Christian journalism really matters. You're an utter moron whose hypocrisy practically emanates from you as an noxious odor.
Go retreat to your little masked Zionist enclave, Atrios, attack any Christian in the public realm, and find refuge in your insane and particular avoidance of the obvious terrors of life. Bloody hypocrite.
Believe it or not, some actually see their religion as an expression of compassion.
What Skydiver said, and one of the few times I disagree with Tena. We can't afford to write these folks off. I'm an agnostic but I read the gospels. Go ahead and read them. If you want some fine liberal talking points, quote Jesus.
Word. as in "The Word."
William: Go retreat to your little masked Zionist enclave, Atrios, attack any Christian in the public realm, and find refuge in your insane and particular avoidance of the obvious terrors of life. Bloody hypocrite.
Looks like someone woke up and got off of the wrong side of the cross this morning.
.
William,
Could you kindly direct your outrage elswhere? If you want read about torture, go to Kos. His folks are covering it rather extensively.
If you're not interested in what we're discussing, then don't participate> Atrios is not your employee, you can't tell him what to write. If he wants to write about bunny slippers, it's his site.
In short, please shut the fuck up. You sound like a yammering idiot. Try setting up a blog and writing about it yourself.
The address is www.blogger.com. That way, you can share your outrage with the world.
According to this Georgetown survey (http://cara.georgetown.edu/Press%2041204.pdf -- presumably this is the one Hagerty refers to), 45.5% of Catholic voters prefer John Kerry, and 40.1% of Catholic voters prefer W. Also, 38.5% of Catholics think of themselves as Democrats; while 30.5% of Catholics think of themselves as Republicans. Wouldn't it have made sense for Hagerty to have included these statistics in her report?
The Georgetown survey concludes with this: “The fact is that it is very difficult for any Catholic member of the electorate to figure out how to cast a ballot that is in agreement with Catholic Church teachings and doctrine,” said Dr. Gray. “There are too many issues that cut across both parties to make it possible to ‘vote Catholic’ even when one of the candidates is Catholic.”
Like Atrios says, Hagerty's reporting is based upon assumptions about who the "real" Catholics are. Those who follow the Church's teachings "on the death penalty, on social welfare and justice issues, [and] on war and peace" are, in Hagerty's world, "less orthodox" people who don't care all that much about "absolute truth."
It's a lot like the absurd idea that only some people (frequently those who seem to have little use for the Bill of Rights) are "real" patriots. Let's all make this point loudly and clearly: leftists aren't opposed to patriotism or religion. We're opposed to a bunch of bullies monopolizing these words for their own political gain.
I coudn't believe my eyes when I read Ms Hagerty's witnessing to the 'greater truth'. I guess I didn't think things had got so bad. I grew up in a small town, and we all went to church and got propagandized by Youth for Christ and the like, but we grew up. A couple of years ago I was hiking on Mount Adams in Washington State, and we got to a knob where another group of hikers was resting for lunch. All of a sudden one of them starting talking to an older man about how she was worried that she wasn't 'saved'. So earnest and so much fear in her eyes. Seemed like nice people, but the Kool-Aid was just too much. It's very sad.
Is Dave a freeper? How can you see Haggerty's analysis as "crappy"? that Juan Williams guy is crappy, as when he interviews Rove without asking any questions. Haggerty was doing subtle things-which kills "crappy" as a possible adjective-in the service of a well known ideological position she has signed on to and openly promoted elsewhere.
Atrios has presented, with a minimum of interrupting guidance or "emphasis", a balls-obvious proof of this WPI craziness. Anyone who wants to quibble over degree with a case this obvious should dilute their Kool Aid.
I didn't need to google Chuck Loveless. He after all is a union official. But since I had no idea who these other people were I thought to take a look. Didn't find anything under Philip Monos that made sense - unless of course he's the coin collector from outside the US http://www.africaguide.com/forum.../maurit/
28.html.
But it gets much better.
Ted Flynn? Could he be the Ted Flynn found at this web site?
http://www.wces.org/html_files/t...s/
tedflynn.html
The Ted Flynn that Amazon says is the co-author of THe Thunder of Justice? A book described on Amazon as one wherein "Roman Catholics are adding their voices to the visionary choir through a host of Marian apparitions chronicled in "The Thunder of Justice", a self-published book by a Sterling, Va., couple that has quickly become a Catholic best seller."
And Carrie Gress? Could she be the Carrie Gress of the Ethics and Public Policy Center? http://www.eppc.org/printVersion...f.asp?
staffID=4 Funded by Bradley, Scaife and Koch, formerly headed by Ernest Lefever and Elliot Abrams?
RINGERS. She's a religion reporter. I have real questions about whether she didn't know who these people were. But I'm glad we all know that Charles Loveless is a union official. If ever there was a case for MWO....
william (of "raws"-what the fuck is raws?) is a cointelpro "straw zombie". cointelpro liked to mail libruls things, cartoons and letters "from a concerned brother of the movement", about how the target (here Atrios) is not really librul, has sold out, etc. this is a highly specialized troll seeking to talk as if they were librul (thus not the same names on their own boards), more numerous than the imaginary Army of Naderness, and likely to multiply like locusts (see also the earlier phenomenon of speech-goers dissing Dean...and not being identified as long time Republicans).
from a Marian (stain-in-the-shape-of-the-Virgin worshipper) site "reviewing" (it doesn't look like any book review we've ever seen) the Book:
Following these events will be the final act of God's Justice. Those who refuse to convert will be dealt with by the only means left - a tremendous Chastisement that will purify the earth.
Very illuminating analysis, atrios. A public service.
well this is probably a little OT but here is what one prominent catholic has to say about the current president, and then about a past catholic pres.A president serves the nation better if he admits at least to himself how problematic all political decisions are. President John F. Kennedy, for example took full responsibility for the Bay of Pigs
snip
Kennedy's stubborn resistance to those who wanted war prevented a nuclear holocaust. A president who has no self-doubt, no ability to question his own mistakes, is a very dangerous man. god, no god, beats the hell out of me, but I really wish all the fundies would just STFU!!!
But they are sometimes called "cafeteria Catholics." I guess she should have made it clear that it was a derrogatory label, but I don't see how this implies that they are immoral.
Dave, it's clear that you don't keep up with the Catholic press. Cafeteria Catholics is a derrogatory term usually used by right-wing Catholics to imply, more than imply actually, that liberal Catholics aren't Catholics. I've seen it used by a liberal once, by Fr. Richard McBrien, in irony to point out that conservatives are just as choosy about what Vatican teachings and even doctrines they follow.
It's all too clear what B.H. intends it to mean, that liberals are bad Catholics. Given her well documented history and her profession of faith it's clear that as a journalist she's eating a la carte from the conservative menu.
Now, excuse me, I've got a religous war to start. I'll be burning you.
Another Bruce and skydiver - I've read the Bible, and I know it reasonably well. I have no interest in quoting it to Evangelicals (and in fact my knowledge of the Bible does not include a handy selection of quotes.)
If you think that I'm wrong about the Evangelical vote, then great. I'd rather believe that there is a way to reach them. I hope you are right.
kei and yuri, I still like the message that the BVM gave those children in Croatia, worship me and you girls, longer skirts. Nothing about not killing the Bosnians or Serbians, not even keep your ass covered they're coming to get you. With a deity like that who needs George Hamilton?
Don't believe it happened, of course.
My second favorite was the "Sacred Heart" that appeared in a tortilla. Is it any wonder that some protestants shake their heads in pity?
OT, but can we have a thread on abuses in Iraq, please. It seems like a pretty important issue and the notion that we were liberating Iraq from abuse of a dictator seems to break down at this point, in all fronts. Given that there are genuine photographs of this, I suspect the abuse is wide-spread. It further proves that war brings the worst in people and must be invoked as the last resort and that the pro-war crowd was just plain wrong.
After all getting pissed on face is not exactly my idea of freedom. Even those photographs of soldiers in family bedrooms searching at the middle of the night send chills down my spine.
Remember the innocent Iraqis in your prayers this weekend.
looks like William got his weekend pass from the asylum.
Too bad they forgot to give him his shots before he left.
Is Dave a freeper?
C'mon, can the guy disagree with Atrios without being labeled like this, or are we against a nuanced point of view? That would be truly freeper-like.
Dave wasn't so much disagreeing with Atrios as failing to see a (in our words) balls-obvious case of interested slant, and proceeding to try to argue that Argentina might, you know, just kind of like the idea of blond hair better, just a nuance. Dave was defending fifth columnist hate speech as "crappy". Who among you would listen to someone try to describe Arab vows to "murder evrey Jew" and "drive Israel into the sea" as bad judgement or timing or lousy logic? This woman has threatened every one of you not actively in her sect, that's how these people are. Union of church and state is a far worse hate than just fetishing one particular minority.
I'm getting quite tired of people who come here, slam Atrios, and then whine when they are confronted with an opposite viewpoint from someone here that they are being mischaracterized.
Here's a thought - if you don't want to be mischaracterized, then post comments accordingly. If you show up here once a week and solely to accuse Atrios of bias, anti-religious writing or stupidity, then you can expect to have people who are here regularly to look at what you are saying with a quite jaundiced eye. What do you think, that we are that dumb? Please.
I hate this crap about how Kerry has to prove he's a good Catholic. That's so ridiculous. We've had one Catholic president--where is the precedent that you have to be a good Catholic to be elected president?
Why can't Kerry just prove he's a good candidate? Why is it that since he is Catholic, that somehow means he has to lock up the Catholic vote? I mean, this makes no sense. How did Bill Clinton get elected? He wasn't a "good Catholic". Same with George Bush. Same with every president but Kennedy.
Give me a break. This is such bullshit.
- Joel
----
Nightmares For Sale - You're Damn Right I'm Angry!
Here's another point:
Imagine there were two heinous murderers who lived on your street. And imagine that one of the heinous murderers was more indiscriminate than the other. Nevertheless, they're both heinous murderers. You'd be pretty alarmed about the both of them and feel that both needed to be put behind bars immediately.
Those weasel-boy Catholic priests who try to get all holier than thou with pro-choice Democratic politicians had damn well better also being going just as hard after those Republican politicians who make rape and incest exceptions to their pro-life stance, because the Catholic Church doesn't countenance rape and incest exceptions.
In fact, the Church can't allow exceptions to their anti-choice position because theoretical consistency requires it. On the Church's theory, assuming that a fetus is a person, you can't justifiably kill that person -- even if they are the product of a rape. That fetus-person is not resposible for the rape. Even if the fetus-person were responsible, you still couldn't takee their life under Church doctrine, since capital punishment is also outlawed.
Hence there can be no legitimate exceptions to the anti-choice position under the Church's reasoning. But there are Catholic politicians, including Republican Catholics who DO make such exceptions. There is no legitimate, non-partisan reason for these weasels to give a pass to those Republican Catholics who make exceptions for abortion in cases of rape and incest.
This is a simple test by which to determine conclusively whether any given instance of religious/political harassment is motivated by moral principle or base partisanship.
Joel - you are exactly right on this. Kerry should not have to discuss his Catholicity and neither he nor any other candidate should be put in the position of justifying his positions based upon his religion. And furthermore, as you said, Kerry should not be in the position of having some kind of obligation to bring in Catholic votes.
This whole discussion, which was engendered once again by the religious right (hence Hagerty, WJI alum) is just plain wrong.
Dave wrote: She's not saying that Republicans have a lock on "absolute truth," just that those who believe in the "absolute truth" of Church doctrine tend to support the Republicans.
I think you're missing Atrios' point. Reduce that key graf to the bare bones, and you get this:
"Those Catholics who hold to absolute truth...overwhelmingly vote Republican...But less orthodox Catholics...gravitate toward the liberal side of church teachings...on the death penalty, on social welfare and justice issues, on war and peace."
She's editorializing here, suggesting that people who support the "liberal side of church teachings" are less orthodox and don't "hold to absolute truth." But there is nothing inherently less "absolute" or less orthodox about "the liberal side of church teachings."
[near peeing on ourselves with giggling, we only just now saw that]
yeah, to be a Catholic President, you have to be a real good Catholic
you know
like that Loyola among men JFK was
again, Dave, it would not have been noticable if she had been honest and admitted it was propaganda/editorializing. She is their "religion reporter", she was presenting it as a "report", her qualification of quotes and sources alone was unforgivable.
As a person who comes from a strong Christian background, I ALSO believe in absolute truths and absolute morality. It is just that in a less-than-perfect world (what orthodox Christians refer to as "fallen") I don't think that anyone apprehends this "absolute truth" with any abolute clarity or perfection.
As for NPR, the die for its sell-out was cast as early as the 1960s when the Congressional Act setting up the structure for it was initially written and passed.
To papaphrase David Barsamian from his book "The Decline and Fall of Public Broadcasting", when the idea of a national "public radio" network was being debated, Congress and the Johnson Adminstration wanted to keep NPR on a tight leash. In other words, they wanted to make sure that, in contrast to other countries that also had public broadcasting, that their little baby would not get out of control and maybe even start criticizing them. Thus, they rejected the recommendation that CPB's funding would be set up in such a way so as to be untouchable by politicians pursuing particular agendas. In other words, they purposely rejected a framework that would insure public broadcasting's complete journalistic independence from the political agendas of whatever interests happened to be in power at the moment.
In doing so, they set public radio on the path to eventually become "National Propaganda Radio."
Anyway, Barsamian's book is a nice little read and for those of you who have become hip to NPR's travesties and sell-outs by now, I stongly recommend you pick up a copy. I got mine through my local Borders.
Dave, it's clear that you don't keep up with the Catholic press. Cafeteria Catholics is a derrogatory term usually used by right-wing Catholics to imply, more than imply actually, that liberal Catholics aren't Catholics. I've seen it used by a liberal once, by Fr. Richard McBrien, in irony to point out that conservatives are just as choosy about what Vatican teachings and even doctrines they follow.
It's all too clear what B.H. intends it to mean, that liberals are bad Catholics. Given her well documented history and her profession of faith it's clear that as a journalist she's eating a la carte from the conservative menu.
Hagerty tells us that these people are often called "cafeteria Catholics," which is not the same thing as calling them that herself. Once again, for you to read from her statement that she is calling them immoral is overly defensive.
FYI, I'm voting for Kerry in November, and whether he's considered a good or bad Catholic is about as important to me as whether he's a good or bad opera singer or whether he's a good or bad ice fisherman.
But for what it's worth, I also don't blame conservative Catholics who choose to vote Republican. Neither party presents a platform that jibes completely with Church doctrine, so choosing a candidate is a matter of setting your priorities--there are a lot more fetuses being aborted in this country than there are criminals being executed. If I were a Catholic trying to prioritize those issues (thankfully, I'm not), abortion would probably be the more pressing one.
Jeremiah Elias - Well they certainly succeeded with their plan to turn it into National Propaganda Radio. The worst thing about it is that NPR is pretty good at what it does - it is subtle. That makes it particularly dangerous.
It may then be a good thing that NPR is getting much less subtle in its bias.
"Those Catholics who hold to absolute truth...overwhelmingly vote Republican...But less orthodox Catholics...gravitate toward the liberal side of church teachings...on the death penalty, on social welfare and justice issues, on war and peace."
She's editorializing here, suggesting that people who support the "liberal side of church teachings" are less orthodox and don't "hold to absolute truth." But there is nothing inherently less "absolute" or less orthodox about "the liberal side of church teachings."
No, she's not saying that. She's suggesting that people who are less orthodox tend to find more resonance in the liberal side of Church teachings, because they disagree with the other parts of Church doctrine.
There ARE some orthodox Catholics who adhere to Church teachings on capital punishment and social justice issues, as well as abortion. But they don't vote "overwhelmingly Republican." They're affiliated with fringe groups like the Catholic Worker and other distributist groups.
The rabidly pro-Bush "social conservatives" are just crotch conservatives. They don't care that the country is being turned into a giant sweatshop and a police state, so long as everyone's genitalia is properly behaved and they're not looking at dirty pictures.
Dave -- If I were to write: "Frequently partaking in what some call symbolic cannabalism and vampirism in what they themselves refer to as their "Communion," these groups say they are Christian." Now, technically, there is nothing incorrect in what I have written if you parse the words carefully, but what could you reasonably infer from my attitude toward them from the above sentence?
Of course, First Things magazine is rabididly neocon and evangelical, on the far fringes of American Catholicism. If Hagerty had cited someone from the more liberal publication Sojouners, I bet its doctrinal stance would have made it into her report.
"Capitalism is the economic corollary of the Christian understanding of man's nature and destiny."
Father Richard John Nehaus
My mistake. Should have said "about my attitude toward them from the above sentence?"
If Haggerty wants to use the term "cafeteria Catholics," she should make it clear that this IS a derogatory term used by their detractors.
Toonscribe - Actually, Hagerty shouldn't be discussing this issue at all, AFAIC.
We should not be discussing the relative voting patterns of different faith groups and how that will affect an election, based solely on the fact that one candidate is Catholic. I really believe that there should be no place for this discussion in this country. It should be totally irrelevant, except perhaps in a church publication. I find it deeply offensive that this kind of thing is being talked about on NPR.
The constitution mandates a separation of church and state. Therefore, it is improper to continually make an issue of religion in a political campaign. End of story.
Fuck religion.
Just more reasons to stay away from it.
Great post, Atrios! The hypocrisy of these people is appalling.
NPR:
"John Kerry's challenge is to persuade voters that this presidential candidate is a good Catholic."
Incorrect. Kerry's challenge is to convince Democrats that he's electable -
NYT - Democrats Fears re:Kerry electability
NPR:
Senator JOHN KERRY (Democratic Presidential Candidate):
"here on Earth, G-d's work must truly be our own."
Oh no!! Yet another wingnut Presidential candidate who believe he is "doing G-d's work"!!! ::gasp:: ::shock:: ::horror::
Toodles.
Say it with me, everyone: Shut Up, Karen.
I'm freshly appalled by this: In the long run I had to think, is a story or even is a career ... more valuable than my relationship with God and eternal treasure in heaven
What a joke. If you don't think you're behaving decently the only reason it upsets you is that you might not get into heaven? That's nice. Not "What will the consequences be for the people I screw over," but "If I screw people over Cosmic Daddy won't let me have ice cream." Fuck's sakes.
On the Catholic thing, if Catholic bishops want to tell Democrats and Republicans that they're both fucked in the presidential election because they have to vote for somebody who's violating their precious teachings, would people be okay with that, do you think? At least that's honest. If an unimpeachable position on the sanctity of life is your primary issue, why not go vote for the Right to Life party or find a third party candidate who will support that?
A.
OT comments:
Atrios: But look at the first sentence. "Those Catholics who hold to absolute truth follow the conservative moral teachings of the Vatican, and they overwhelmingly vote Republican." That statement is about as subtle as a smack on the face. Why doesn't absolute truth include opposition to the death penalty?
Dave: But she doesn't say that those who hold to "absolute truth" support the death penalty. She's saying that those who hold to "absolute truth" support Republicans. They often do so in spite of Republican support for the death penalty, not because of it.
radmanthys: You're both right, sort of. But Atrios is more right. Consider the phrase "Those Catholics who hold to absolute truth follow the conservative moral teachings of the Vatican, and they overwhelmingly vote Republican." She is indeed saying they support Republicans, and it is ambiguous whether or not she thinks this means their conservative Catholic beliefs correspond to the conservative beliefs of Republicans on the death penalty.
However, reconsider the first part of the phrase: "Those Catholics who hold to absolute truth follow the conservative moral teachings of the Vatican." If we simply cut out "those Catholics" we can make the following sentence without changing the meaning: "Those who hold to absolute truth follow the conservative moral teachings of the Vatican." This is tantamount to saying that the conservative moral teachings of the Vatican **are absolute truth**. Once you assume this, than any deviation away from the conservative moral teachings is a deviation from truth. And this is exactly what Hagerty goes on to imply, saying that those who are more liberal are "less orthodox". The "ortho" in orthodox means true, as in true teachings. From this point of view to be liberal is, in its very essence, to be further from the truth, and thus to be a bad Catholic. It is amazing that we have had to parse this language so much to determine it, because it is subtle, as Atrios noted. But there is no denying that Hagerty makes the association "conservative moral teachings of the Vatican"--truth--Republicans and the corresponding one of "liberal side of the church teachings"--further from truth--Democrats. Not surprisingly, the word "moral" is absent in the latter grouping.
One last comment:
Mr. JOHN KENNETH WHITE (Catholic University): The basic division in American politics today is between those that, on the one side, believe in absolute truth, that there is a universal sense of right and wrong. On the other side of the divide, these folks like their morality roots small, meaning that my morality is for me but not necessarily for you.
radmanthys: I strongly disagree with the dualism you set up here, Mr. John Kenneth White. This opposition may represent the range of thinking from within Catholicism, I don't know. But there is nothing "universal" about the sense of right and wrong that Christians like George WMD Bush have. It is very much derived from one American sect of Christianity, and is limited in its expression to the specific teachers, stories, parables, history, etc. within that tradition.
On the other hand, people who believe that "my morality is for me but not necessarily for you" don't necessarily have shallow moral roots. Their roots may go even deeper than those who allegedly "believe in absolute truth." They may believe in a morality that is more universal than any one religion, and that informs all major religions, and even legal systems. For this reason, they would be able to say to Christians like Bush, "you can access this universal morality through your particular religion, and I'll do it through mine, and that's...OK. But we will both be striving towards a greater good."
only evangelical catholics go to heaven, jeebus style.
Here in Notre Dame, IN...er...excuse mean, South Bend...
St. Joe Retracts Kernan Invitation
-- Gov. Joe Kernan's high school alma mater has withdrawn a commencement speaking invitation to Kernan based on Kernan's policy statements on abortion.
South Bend St. Joseph High School withdrew the invitation at the direction of Bishop John M. D'Arcy of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend, who has direct authority over the school.
D'Arcy, who confirmed his actions in conversation and a written statement Friday, said theology teachers at the school believed that Kernan's appearance would directly contradict the moral truths they teach and expect students to embrace.
"I am in full agreement with these teachers," D'Arcy said.
He then directed school Principal Kathleen Ratliff to withdraw the invitation in writing and to inform Kernan that D'Arcy had requested the action.
There's more
http://www.southbendtribune.com
for link to story.
Just wait until Traditional Catholics discover that Bush belongs to a Crackpot Heretic Cult...especially one which has been persecuting Catholics from the get go.
Bravo Atrios for covering this and revealing Hagerty. The right has made huge inroads into the American Catholic establishment, and as you have pointed out numerous times, we liberal Catholics need to do more than just vote against Bush in order to stop it.
Jesus was a liberal.
Republican pro-life piety is a fraud.
Is it possible to start lobbying local public radio stations to drop NPR and replace it with something else like Pacifica?
excellent reporting on a subject no one else is reporting on.
I guess I've become so used to hearing worse crap than this (the Hagerty NPR report) on Fox that I just can't get too excited about this particular report.
On the one hand, everybody, conservative or liberal, has to accept that there will be some reporters out there with slants that will enter their reporting in some subtle way. It's when it becomes dishonest and deliberately misleading, as is the case with much of Fox's reporting (e.g., Saddam's connection with 9/11) that we should become most upset.
So, this report doesn't bug me that much. One reporter's myopic slant isn't such a big deal.
HAGERTY: "How does Jesus Christ view my performance??
as self-righteous, egocentric perversion, distortion, and corruption.
=======
I think (but am not sure) that debating the religious mafiosos is unnecessary. The brainwashed are going to ignore all the hypocrisy pointing-out that you can throw at them, and the rest, those already well aware of the hypocrisy and dangers of the fanatics, need no convincing.
When the faith Dictators deny Kerry for has positions, they likewise say to a majority of their followers that there is no room for them. This is a a major failing of Catholicism (and republicans) - the attempt to prevent people from being human.
For most, organized religion is a losing proposition precisely because of its demands for adherence to dictums in spite of religion's underlying inability to provide sensible answers that help people navigate everyday life.
People also invaribly see the incredible paucity and corruption of the faith Dictators turning a blind eye to violations of their teachings that are not convenient (such as the central republican tenets of overwhelming greed and preventing help for the need).
========
Brilliant work until the last two words. NPR is not "liberal." That ended long ago, I'm afraid.
If Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Wolfie and the rest were to suddenly be found skinned alive and rolled in salt on the mall in Washington, then, and only then, would I believe there might be a God.
Not all evangelicals are right-wing. The Christians4Dean list had fundamentalists wrestling with how to sell the Dean moral posture on peace and health care to coreligionists whose litmus test was abortion.
Also, "evangelical" is a term that historically belongs to mainline United Church of Christ members, Lutherans, and Methodists. It has been hijacked by right-wing Christians, and I'd say more but it's Sunday and I'm on best behavior.
Joy
nascar daughter wrote: "Those Catholics who hold to absolute truth...overwhelmingly vote Republican...But less orthodox Catholics...gravitate toward the liberal side of church teachings...on the death penalty, on social welfare and justice issues, on war and peace."
She's editorializing here, suggesting that people who support the "liberal side of church teachings" are less orthodox and don't "hold to absolute truth." But there is nothing inherently less "absolute" or less orthodox about "the liberal side of church teachings."
Dave wrote: No, she's not saying that. She's suggesting that people who are less orthodox tend to find more resonance in the liberal side of Church teachings, because they disagree with the other parts of Church doctrine.
I see your point Dave, but I think you're reading your own perceptions into what she actually said. Nowhere does she define Republican Catholics as people who agree with both "conservative" and "liberal" teachings, and Democratic Catholics as people who agree with only the "liberal" teachings. And how would she know whether that was true, anyway?
Personally, I suspect that it's not true. How many Catholics who will be voting strictly on their pro-life convictions were also against the Iraq war (which the Vatican came out against)? How many Catholics who vote for pro-choice candidates would also not have an abortion themselves due to their own pro-life convictions? In my own experience as a Catholic, the answer to the first question is not many, while the answer to the second question is a whole lot.
And how does one define who "holds to absolute truth"? Notice here, she doesn't say "absolute truth of the Church's teachings," just "absolute truth" period. And she picks the phrase "absolute truth" up from Mr. White's comment, which defines it as "a universal sense of right and wrong." Plenty of Catholics "gravitate toward the liberal side of church teachings" out of exactly that sense.
How is it that only three people were NOT identified by affiliation in the story and they're ALL right wing kooks saying the most outrageous things in the report? The one person coming out of the church who had something nice to say was immediately identified.
Did these three people go to church together? Or are they buddies with the reporter who said, meet us at mass and we'll give you an earful. It's just too much of a coincidence that they just happened to be there and just happened to be the ones interviewed. And nobody asked them what they did for a living, unlike the liberal.
I can't prove it, but it looks like a set-up to me. And given Barb's little speech about doing "god's will" in her job, it wouldn't surprise me one bit to find out she was loading the story. Not one bit. This should be looked into, hard.
i love how the mission statement specifies the bible as the INERRANT word of god. you can see these people desperately trying to extinguish their deep-seated dread that the bible as absolute unwavering god-truth is the most tenuous premise on planet earth. (interestingly, the US Constitution is illogically held in the exact same immutable, supreme regard-- in order to evade the free-thinking responsibilities of a human Brain)
rather than exemplifying a "[unexplainably] different word" I think most christians provide good foils for rational human beings. too much contradiction and treachary in this whole hagerty affair.
Question: are there any hardline christians (or any fundamentalists) who aren't pathologically deranged?
of course,
i meant to say "world" not "word"
NPR is liberal?
Naturally, if there were a candidate who agreed with the Church's teaching on every issue, we would love to vote for him (if he seemed at all likely to be competent). But given an unappetizing choice of candidates who disagree with the Church on different issues, we look for the lesser evil - the one who doesn't disagree with the Church on the most important issues. The Church's teaching on abortion is an absolute and unchangeable dogma. The counsel against the use of the death penalty is conditional. (The catechism says that the death penalty is sometimes justified, but should be used only when really necessary, which is not very often nowadays). The counsel against going to war against Iraq is, again, the Pope's prudential judgment; which I agree with more rather than with President Bush (and Senator Kerry)'s prudential judgment the other way, but since Kerry as well as Bush dissented from the Pope on this issue, it would not affect Catholics' voting choices even if the counsel against going to war against Iraq had been an infallible declaration, which it wasn't.
Fr. Rob Johansen explains it fairly well in this post at his weblog.
Hi! I'm sorry. Are you looking for a Free Naughty Nati Video Go here
Naughty Naty OR here
Free Naughty Nati Porno As for me Naughty - the best girl in the world
972
Characters Remaining:
Commenting by HaloScan
