A prayer for a Right Wing meanie

Updated below with good news.

Brothers and sisters in Christ and out,

Let us now say a prayer for the lost and tormented souls of Bill Donohue and other Right Wing hate-mongering bigots and Republican stooges who presume to speak for all Catholics as they try to turn the country into the homophobic, misogynistic, reactionary, patriarchal, Third World country of their fevered dreams.

Donohue, President of the "Catholic" League, wants John Edwards to fire his recently hired blogger in chief Amanda Marcotte and netroots coordinator Shakespeare's Sister because they are, says Donohue, anti-Catholic bigots.

This is the same Bill Donohue who has said that lesbians belong in insane asylums, where, judging by the curious voyeurism implicit in his sentence structure, he would like to go and watch them.

This is the same Bill Donohue who apparently believes that it's ok for priests to molest boys as long as those boys aren't in elementary school and their voices have broken.

And this is the same Bill Donohue who has such enlightened attitudes about Hollywood and Jews.

Clearly a man tormented by demons and deserving of our pity, compassion, and prayers.  So, let us now pray, for Donohue and the others:

In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,

Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee, blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.

Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death.  Amen.

Don't think I'm kidding here.  I'm serious.  These poor people are going to hell if they don't see the light.  They need our prayers, although in the case of Donohue whole convents saying rosaries nonstop for a month might not help him.  Still, we need to try.

And say a prayer, too, for the Edwards campaign to find the courage to stand up to these villains and frauds.

But because there's a limit to how much we should rely on prayer, write Edwards and remind him that placating the likes of Bill Donohue means offending the likes of...well...every decent Liberal and Democrat who might vote for him in the primaries.  If you're Catholic, let him know that Donohue does not speak for you or control your vote.  And if you're gay, remind him that Donohue is the bigot and that you don't vote for politicians who crawl to bigots.

Contact him here.

To read:

Media Matters' Donohue file.

MahaBarb.

Pam.

Greenwald.

The Carpetbagger.

Waveflux.

Scott, and Scott again.

Update: The Good News is that John Edwards has decided to keep Shakes and Amanda on.

Sen. Edwards' statement.

Amanda's.

Shakes'.

Comments

[grasshopper]

Thanks for the links. Was politics always so petty, so many bellicose dimwits threatening harm to any kid on the playground trying to hang on to his or her lunch money?

[nola]

Well done! Shift the attention to Donohue and maybe you won't have to address Marcotte's vulgar and offensive comments. Pretend that the only person in the world who cares about this is Donohue and then you won't have to engage the question of what messages are sent by a candidate's choice of bloggers. And be sure to avoid the question of what is best for the Edwards campaign. You bloggers can't let serious issues get in the way of a good, self-centered rant!

[Kate Marie]

1) The tu quoque argument is a logical fallacy, Lance.

2) I don't know much about Bill Donohue and I'm not a member of the Catholic League. I am a Catholic, though.

[JVD]

Nola, which comments of Marcotte's do you reference? If it's the one about Catholicism getting current play, I've heard worse said by practicing Catholics back when I was one.

[Kate Marie]

JVD,

And if John Edwards had hired one of those "practicing Catholics," and if there were a record of the things that particular practicing Catholic had said, the issue would still be the same.

Look, this doesn't affect me, because I'm not likely, except in the strangest of circumstances, ever to vote for John Edwards. And it *might* not affect Edwards in the primaries. But it has the potential to come back and haunt him in a national election -- unless he's planning to use these two to rile up the "netroots" and then quietly fire them before the national election, in which case I'd expect his opponent to make an issue out of that Machiavellian strategy.

[Linkmeister]

Edwards keeps Amanda and Shakes Sis. Statements from all three linked from that post.

[joanr16]

Ah, it's tough being a culture's dominant religion; all that money and power and nowhere to use it, what with Inquisitions being so 1952! Who knows, one of those two pissed-off women could be the Antichrist, or at the very least, a Communist. Better gang up on them now.

[MaryC]

Was politics always so petty, so many bellicose dimwits

Remember Foghorn Leghorn? He was actually a rip-off of another fictional character, Senator Claghorn on the Fred Allen radio show -- and there were plenty of real-life petty, bellicose dimwits back then to base both characters on.

[mikez]

1) The tu quoque argument is a logical fallacy, Lance.

Donohue isn't making a logical argument and neither are you, not by a long shot. One side needs to be intellectually rigorous, but not the other? In a political debate? Give me a break.

And what ever happened to that 'Character Counts' bullshit? I guess that only applies to one side too.

[Kate Marie]

MikeZ,

I'm not making any argument, except that *Lance's* argument is a logical fallacy, which it clearly is.

Donohue's point doesn't rely on his personal integrity but on direct quotations from Amanda Marcotte's blog. One could attempt to argue, in an "intellectually rigorous way," that Marcotte's comments/blog *aren't* examples of anti-Catholic, anti-religious bigotry, but this post ain't it.

Is Donohue a bigot? He very well may be. I don't care. I don't give money to his organization, and -- so far, anyway -- he hasn't been hired by anyone I'm likely to vote for for president.

[nola]

Even the comments here are unusually banal. Inquisition? Right.

JVD - I am too lazy to find links to specific quotes but many of her statements go way beyond simply criticizing the church. And this isn't just about the Catholic church - - her "commentary" on the bogus Duke case is beyond belief.

She can say whatever she likes but she was a terrible choice for this kind of position. If I agreed with every word out of Ann Coulter's mouth I would not want her representing my candidate. Blogging for a major campaign requires a degree of tact and maturity that Marcotte obviously lacks.

Incidentally, I don't think the other one should have been lumped in with Marcotte. SS is outspoken, but Marcotte is vile. I never understood how Mannion could speak so highly of Pandagon. Maybe he wants the kiddies to think he's cool.

[Lance]

KM,

You're pushing me to prove that Amanda and Shakes aren't anti-Catholic bigots, which is like pushing me to prove they aren't Martians.

I wasn't trying to deflect Donohue's charges by saying, "Yeah, you're another." I'm simply identifying him for my readers who might have been lucky enough not to know of his existence until now.

I forgot to add one more item to his resume. He's the crassest of publicity hounds, stirring up trouble wherever he can to get his face on TV. He's already forgotten Shakes and Amanda. Today he's after Barbara Walters and Rosie O'Donnell.

Something to do with Rosie thinking the Church shouldn't require priests to be celibates.

An interesting idea. I wonder if I should write a post about it...

[David]

You're pushing me to prove that Amanda and Shakes aren't anti-Catholic bigots, which is like pushing me to prove they aren't Martians.

I don't think so Lance. At least, that's not how I read it. To me, it looks like KM is saying that there are good ways to defend these two bloggers, but "he's even worse" isn't one of them. It certainly looks like you were trying to deflect criticism, and honestly, saying that you were just trying to be informative sounds weak.

Mind you, I'm not taking sides here, because I haven't read any of the supposedly bigoted quotes, and I'm guessing this is the sort of issue that only bloggers notice and care about. This blog is the only one I read with any kind of semi-regularity, because I like your writing, and I know that Donohoe is a hypocrite and a creep, but I don't think this is an example of your best work.

[Kate Marie]

Lance,

At the very least, the "satirical" and "humorous" post of Amanda Marcotte's that has been the subject of a lot of the controversy demonstrates that she's willing to be offensive and disrespectful to Catholic beliefs in order to make her broader "public policy" points. Whether she meant to "malign" Catholics may be debatable. Whether she meant to sneer at their beliefs seems to me less debatable. But if you're up for it, I say bring it, man. Maybe I can get a few good jabs in while you're sitll sick. :)

[KC45s]

Whenever Pope Donohue rears his head, I think of all those Pentecostals and evangelicals out there, decent people, nice guys and ladies, willing to forgive those that trespass against them--and everyone thinks they follow [obscene gerund, expletives deleted] like Pat Robertson. Revealing who and what he is qualifies as a public service, Lance. Sex-obsessed moralizing "Catholics" like Donohue are one of the reasons there are so many ex-Catholics writing mean things about the Church on the internet.

Look, I'm all for civility. But speaking as a Catholic, I can say that the worst so-called anti-Catholic bigotry I've ever heard came from people who'd broken away from the Church. You know what? It didn't offend me. They had their reasons. The Church is an institution. A powerful one. Donohue's ongoing point isn't that people say mean things about it. It's that the Church is above criticism and that all criticism is therefore bigotry. Please.

If Republicans can hire acolytes from the Ralph Reed/Pat Robertson/Lee Atwater/Karl Rove wings of the party--and they do, all the time, despite beliefs as vulgar (and moreso) than those expressed by Marcotte--I think the Dems can survive.

[Kate Marie]

"Look, I'm all for civility. But speaking as a Catholic, I can say that the worst so-called anti-Catholic bigotry I've ever heard came from people who'd broken away from the Church. You know what? It didn't offend me. They had their reasons. The Church is an institution. A powerful one. Donohue's ongoing point isn't that people say mean things about it. It's that the Church is above criticism and that all criticism is therefore bigotry. Please."

-- I'm not worried about the Church. It *is* powerful, and it'll survive (cue Gloria Gaynor). But that doesn't mean it's impossible to be bigoted against Catholics. To be honest, though, I don't care what Donohue's ongoing point is (at least as it relates to this issue). I read a post by Amanda Marcotte that indicates a willingness to play to the anti-religious zealots in the peanut gallery when she could have made the same point without the offensiveness, the patent disrespect, and the sneering. She is certainly entitled to do that on her blog (or, for that matter, as John Edwards's blog manager). I'm also entitled to point out, to Catholics and other religious traditionalists, that that kind of undisciplined rhetorical strategy doesn't, or didn't, seem to bother Edwards when he hired these bloggers.

"If Republicans can hire acolytes from the Ralph Reed/Pat Robertson/Lee Atwater/Karl Rove wings of the party--and they do, all the time, despite beliefs as vulgar (and moreso) than those expressed by Marcotte--I think the Dems can survive."

-- If you want to make the case against any "acolytes" who've been hired by Republican campaigns, you're welcome to do so -- and to use those acolyte's words against them, as liberals have often done in the past. But if you dismiss Marcotte's rhetoric as harmless, or if you suggest the criticisms of her are merely smears, what "standing" do you have to criticize the putatively vulgar rhetoric of your ideological opponents? Why can't I point to Marcotte and say that you're just as much a hypocrite as Donohue? If your point is simply "what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander," you don't get to claim the moral high ground.

[SV]

I know yesterday was the day for recommending other blogs, but John Rogers had a shatteringly awesome post about this at Kung Fu Monkey.

[Kevin Wolf]

I'm going to plug my own post on this, as well as second the suggestion above to read what was posted at Kung Fu Monkey.

I admit to not being a reader of anything at Pandagon, so my post is in defense of Shakes.

[nola]

The post at Kung Fu Monkey is even sillier than Mannion's. Donohue is evil, therefore Marcotte is good. Nice try. Defending Marcotte's comments about the church or the Duke lacrosse fiasco would be a little more relevant than attacking Donohue - but I won't hold my breath waiting for that to happen. Mannion and KFM must have taken lessons from Team Clinton - attack the accuser and avoid the facts.

[Campaspe]

Donohue has also manifestly failed to engage the substance of the arguments he is ginning up outrage against, instead focusing on Amanda's too, too nasty rudeness. Indeed the tu quoque is a logical fallacy. However, it is also true that one is entitled to a bit of eyerolling over the howls of moral outrage from a loud, well-documented bigot. There is a persistent "Do as I say, not as I do" tendency among public moral crusaders, from Henry "Youthful Indiscretion" Hyde to William "Slots" Bennett to Michelle "Intern a Muslim, Because They're Fanatics" Malkin. An occasional peep from someone like this may be tolerable. Year after excruciating year of it starts to wear. And there is, after all, some sterling precedent for tu quoque.

[cassie bates]

Here's another take on the blog-troversy.

[JD]

Sorry, I still get the impression that what fundamentally gripes Marcotte is not Catholics as believers or people, but the unreasonable penchant the Church hierarchy shows for meddling in secular politics. An example: the Bishop of my former diocese required a 14 minute videotape of himself in essence telling all parishioners how to vote in the midterm elections to be played at each and every Mass in his diocese the weekend before the vote. If I were still a practicing Catholic, I would have walked out. Marcotte was too strident, yes--but I don't expect her to practice that level of rhetoric professionally on a national level.

And lest I be tarred with the "most virulent anti-Catholics are former Catholics" brush--my former parish does wonderful social justice work and is populated with a high percentage of warm, sincere people who take the New Covenant seriously. It's the Church from the Bishop on up that I can no longer take.

[Tom]

Odd, how the protests from the likes of Kate Marie and nola have died down since Campaspe slung a bit of chapter-and-verse against them. Was it that, Edwards' statement, or the weight of the absurdities that they were piling on that caused them to cork it?

I've been alternately disgusted and amused by the commenters here and at Tom Watson's blog who suddenly decided that here is where they're drawing the line against intemperate statements. It's really of a piece with the remaining Republicans in Congress who have suddenly seen the light of bipartisanship and a return of the fair rules of engagement that they had run out of town on a rail several years earlier. It's all they have left, really, and they'll work it for all they're worth even if they have to clothespin their noses shut against the stench of their own hypocrisy.

[nola]

Tom - Nobody has "corked it" on account of Campaspe's ramblings. Again, he is debating Donohue and Malkin because he does not want to defend Marcotte. Who can blame him?

Mannion, Campaspe and you don't want to address Marcotte because you know she is a silly little loudmouth. Don't tell me about the loudmouths on the right - I would not advise a Republican candidate to hire a Coulter or Malkin. A national candidate should be building coalitions, not alienating mainstream voters.

[Campaspe]

Ahem. That would be HER ramblings.

And no, I wasn't debating Donohue, any more than I debate the policy prescriptions of David Duke; nor was I defending Amanda, whose points against the Catholic Church are pretty much the bedrock plaints of feminists since, oh, about 1792. I do grant that Amanda used some notably vulgar imagery to reinforce her points. I don't advocate that, if only because we must then watch the TV cameras converge on Donohue as he issues more encyclicals from his fainting couch.

[Tom]

Sorry, nola, but your and your cohorts' attempts to define the debate has failed. Marcotte doesn't need defending when the person spearheading the accusing is the sort that would cry "Anti-Catholic!" if someone, somewhere, implied that the Pope, on an extended camping trip, may have possibly shat in the woods. As you said yourself, you are "too lazy to find links to specific quotes", so what should he be defending Marcotte against?

Time to let this one go and run along to the next wingnut spin campaign. I'm sure that you could find one of Kucinich's phone bank volunteers that has some unpaid parking tickets.

[nola]

The controversy arose from Marcotte's comments and the issue was whether Edwards should dump them or not. That is the issue. Obviously the Nutroots didn't want them canned, but rather than defend the indefensible you have focused on one accuser. As I said above, Clinton taught you well.

If a Republican candidate's blogger made vile remarks about blacks it would not be enough to point out the fact that Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are scumbags. The remarks themselves, and the candidate's choice of bloggers would be the issue. But don't worry - I understand why someone in your position would avoid the uncomfortable facts.

And Campaspe's argument against Marcotte's comments is perfect - don't be insulting and vulgar or else the enemy will call you out. Some people would argue that being vulgar and insulting is just wrong but I forgot you only apply that standard to blacks, gays, Muslims and other victim groups with the PC seal of approval.

[Kate Marie]

Just chiming in here to agree with Nola, especially this:

"If a Republican candidate's blogger made vile remarks about blacks it would not be enough to point out the fact that Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are scumbags. The remarks themselves, and the candidate's choice of bloggers would be the issue. But don't worry - I understand why someone in your position would avoid the uncomfortable facts."

The others commenters just seem to keep saying the same thing over and over again, apparently hoping that repetition will do the job that "logic" hasn't.

[Campaspe]

Okay, let me recap here, just for our general edification.

1. Pointing out the beam in Donohue's eye--his naked bigotry, as opposed to mere vulgarity--is tu quoque. It is a logical fallacy.
2. Now take a scenario wherein a GOP candidate's on-staff blogger makes a racist remark, and there is a resulting outcry from blacks in general.
3. That outcry would presumably include Jackson and Sharpton, and those two are "scumbags" (an odd word choice for someone critiquing vulgarity, but let it pass).
4. Pointing out that Jackson and Sharpton do not have stainless records would not mitigate the remark.
5. The hypothetical hue and cry over overt racism is admirably analogous to the outrage of a man who represents a small segment of unusually doctrinaire American Catholics.
6. Overt racism is admirably analogous to a woman recapping garden-variety feminist arguments against the Catholic church, as long as the woman makes a rude joke about the Immaculate Conception.
7. Now that's logic, friends. Q.E.D.

Please excuse me, I am going to focus on Douglas Sirk now. I think he would have known just which angle to take on Donohue.

[Campaspe]

Correcting myself: Amanda was joking about the Virgin Birth, not the Immaculate Conception.

[Kate Marie]

Thanks for the correction on the Immaculate Conception/Virgin Birth, Campaspe. At least you're bothering to get the details right.

1) What do you mean by "*admirably* analogous?"

2) "The hypothetical hue and cry over overt racism is admirably analogous to the outrage of a man who represents a small segment of unusually doctrinaire American Catholics."

-- If you think only Donohue and his small segment of doctrinaire Catholics would be insulted and offended by the "satire" about the Virgin birth, I have millions of ordinary Catholics -- especially millions of Hispanic Catholics, who have a special devotion to Our Lady of Guadalupe -- to introduce you to. You imply that "ordinary" Catholics wouldn't be outraged by Marcotte's "joke." I'd like to see that put to a test. Let ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, and CNN put the exact quote out on their news shows, and then let's see whether the outrage is confined to a "small segment of unusually doctrinaire Catholics."

3) "Overt racism is admirably analogous to a woman recapping garden-variety feminist arguments against the Catholic church, as long as the woman makes a rude joke about the Immaculate Conception."

-- No, overt racism is analogous to overt anti-religious bigotry. If the hypothetical staffer used the derogatory language about African-Americans in the context of an argument about public policy proposals, would you accept my insistence that you pay attention to the substance of the argument and not the inflammatory language? Is racism *exactly* analogous to anti-Catholic bigotry? No. But let's not pretend that there hasn't been a history of some pretty pernicious anti-Catholicism in this country. It's interesting, too, that both forms of bigotry met in that beloved feminist figure Margaret Sanger (who was anti-Catholic and a champion of eugenics). [Is that last point relevant to the discussion? No. So sue me.]

[Kate Marie]

P.S. I will admit that what probably called up the snide reference to Margaret Sanger is an undertone -- not necessarily from you, Campaspe, but from the pro-Marcotte/anti-Donohue forces in general -- of "She's a *feminist,* not a bigot," as though the two are mutually exclusive. I really can't say whether Marcotte is a bigot (don't know her, haven't read much of her writing), but I can say that she was willing to use rhetoric which she must have known would be very offensive to Catholic believers in the course of a feminist argument against Catholic teachings. That strikes me, at the very least, as evidence of a remarkable "insensitivity."

[nola]

Campaspe - There is a difference between using vulgar language to describe a creep like Sharpton and using vulgar language to broadly mock Catholics. Sorry you don't seem to appreciate the difference.

There is nothing inappropriate about using vulgar language to describe someone who deliberately accused an innocent man of rape. Then again, Marcotte's supporters don't really have an issue with falsely accusing people of rape do they?

And we were all so impressed with your film reference! Mannion has taught you well - anyone who differs with the gay lobby is a homo! Such sophisticated analysis.

[nola]

Campaspe - There is a difference between using vulgar language to describe a creep like Sharpton and using vulgar language to broadly mock Catholics. Sorry you don't seem to appreciate the difference.

There is nothing inappropriate about using vulgar language to describe someone who deliberately accused an innocent man of rape. Then again, Marcotte's supporters don't really have an issue with falsely accusing people of rape do they?

And we were all so impressed with your film reference! Mannion has taught you well - anyone who differs with the gay lobby is a homo! Such sophisticated analysis.

[nola]

Campaspe - There is a difference between using vulgar language to describe a creep like Sharpton and using vulgar language to broadly mock Catholics. Sorry you don't seem to appreciate the difference.

There is nothing inappropriate about using vulgar language to describe someone who deliberately accused an innocent man of rape. Then again, Marcotte's supporters don't really have an issue with falsely accusing people of rape do they?

And we were all so impressed with your film reference! Mannion has taught you well - anyone who differs with the gay lobby is a homo! Such sophisticated analysis.

[nola]

Campaspe - There is a difference between using vulgar language to describe a creep like Sharpton and using vulgar language to broadly mock Catholics. Sorry you don't seem to appreciate the difference.

There is nothing inappropriate about using vulgar language to describe someone who deliberately accused an innocent man of rape. Then again, Marcotte's supporters don't really have an issue with falsely accusing people of rape do they?

And we were all so impressed with your film reference! Mannion has taught you well - anyone who differs with the gay lobby is a homo! Such sophisticated analysis.

[nola]

Yikes. Pardon the multiple posts.

[Campaspe]

"And we were all so impressed with your film reference! Mannion has taught you well - anyone who differs with the gay lobby is a homo! Such sophisticated analysis."

Scroll up.

There is a post above you that references Sirk.

I can be found there, talking about Sirk.

Hence the Sirk reference.

Reading the post, let alone following the link, will bring up the point that Sirk's lifelong theme was bourgeois hypocrisy.

Not repressed homosexuality.

Over and out.

[nola]

I stand corrected on the Sirk reference. And I'm happy to note that Marcotte has been thrown overboard. I don't think her defenders will make much noise this time around.

[jill bryant]

Marcotte was "thrown overboard?" What does that mean? Was she asked to leave?