The right-wing attacks on Amanda (Pandagon) and Melissa (Shakespeare’s Sister) has busted out of the blogs: Bill Donohue of the Catholic League has called for the Edwards campaign to fire Amanda and Melissa. This has led to articles in The New York Times and AP.
I’m going to go point-by-point through Bill Donohue’s complaints, but first: Please go to John Edwards’ site and send them a brief message of support for Amanda and Melissa. (In addition, you could post a message of support on this open thread at Edwards’ campaign blog, although I think you have to register to post). And second, for many more links on this subject, check out this post at CultureKitchen.
Okay, let’s get to what the “Catholic League” – who by no means represents all Catholics — has to say. It’s basically a collection of quotes by Amanda and Melissa.
Catholic League president Bill Donohue is demanding that presidential hopeful John Edwards fire two recently hired anti-Catholics who have joined his team: Amanda Marcotte as Blogmaster and Melissa McEwan as the Netroots Coordinator. Here’s why:
“Writing on the Pandagon blogsite, December 26, 2006, Amanda Marcotte wrote that ‘the Catholic church is not about to let something like compassion for girls get in the way of using the state as an instrument to force women to bear more tithing Catholics.’
As an argument, the “more tithing Catholics” part of what Amanda wrote may be unfair, because it implies that the Catholic Church’s motive for wanting more Catholics born is greed. It seems plausible to me that the Catholic Church wants as many Catholics as possible for reasons unrelated to greed.
Other than that, though, everything in Amanda’s quote is true. The Catholic church is perfectly open about encouraging Catholics to have children.1 It’s certainly true that the Catholic church encourages laws which would force pregnant women and girls to give birth against their will; using the state’s powers to force childbirth on pregnant women and girls is what pro-life and anti-emergency-contraception laws literally do. And it’s also true that the Catholic church does not support any exceptions to the anti-abortion, anti-emergency-conception policies they promote based on compassion for pregnant girls.
So what Amanda said was true; the Catholic church promotes laws that would force pregnant women and girls to give birth, and they don’t support compassionate exceptions for pregnant girls. It’s ludicrous to suggest that Amanda should be fired for telling the truth.
Moving on….
On October 9, 2006, she said that ‘the Pope’s gotta tell women who give birth to stillborns that their babies are cast into Satan’s maw.’ On the same day she wrote that ‘it’s going to be bad PR for the church, so you can sort of see why the Pope is dragging ass.’
I fail to see any issue here at all. Amanda is discussing is what happens to the souls of aborted fetuses under Catholic doctrine; do they go to Limbo? The current Pope is widely expected to at some point declare that Limbo doesn’t exist; this means that the common pro-life argument used by some grassroots Catholic activists, that abortion is wrong because it sends unbaptized souls to Limbo, will be taken off the table. So will the new doctrine be that aborted souls go to heaven, or to hell? Amanda is speculating that his dedication to the pro-life cause will make the Pope declare that aborted souls go to hell:
I suspect Pope Ratz will give into the urge eventually to come out and say there’s no limbo and unbaptized babies go straight to hell. He can’t help it; he’s just a dictator like that. Hey, fish gotta swim, birds gotta fly, the Pope’s gotta tell women who give birth to stillborns that their babies are cast into Satan’s maw. The alternative is to let Catholic women who get abortions feel that it’ll all work out in the end, which is just not doable, due to that Jesus-like compassion the Pope is so fond of. Still, it’s going to be bad PR for the church, so you can sort of see why the Pope is dragging ass.
To Amanda’s critics, I say: So what? The Pope is a public figure who is actively involved in secular politics. As such, he’s fair game for criticism, even harsh criticism. Amanda isn’t attacking him for being Catholic; she’s attacking him for being a pro-life politician who wants to use the law to dictate what women do with their own bodies.
Unless one feels that to criticize the Pope for his political views is automatically anti-Catholic — which would be ridiculous — nothing Amanda writes here is outside the bounds of what can legitimately be said about major public figures.
Next, Bill Donohue writes:
And on June 14, 2006, she offered the following Q&A: ‘What if Mary had taken Plan B after the Lord filled her with his hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit,’ to which she replied, ‘You’d have to justify your misogyny with another ancient mythology.’
The “Q” part of the “Q&A” is (literally speaking) obscene, and it makes fun of Catholic doctrine. But so what? Official Catholic doctrine shouldn’t be immune from being made fun of. Nor is Amanda’s point — which is, as I read it, that those Catholics who support misogynistic policies aren’t forced to do so by Catholicism, but are instead just using Catholicism as a post-hoc rationalization for their own misogyny — in any way anti-Catholic.
I do agree that anti-Catholic bigotry is wrong and should be fought. If Amanda wrote that we could never trust any Catholic in public office because we don’t know what master they’d serve, that would be disgusting bigotry. If she wrote that all Catholics are smelly fish-eaters, that would be disgusting bigotry.
But making fun of beliefs and political positions is not the same thing as bigotry against people; in a nation of free speech, the beliefs and political positions of huge and powerful organizations has to be fair game for both criticism and making fun. This is especially true of a huge and powerful organization like the Catholic Church, which uses its theological beliefs as part of a worldwide campaign to influence the laws passed by secular governments.
Bill then moves from Amanda to Melissa:
“On November 21, 2006, Melissa McEwan said on AlterNet that ‘some of Christianity’s most prominent leaders—including the Pope—regularly speak out against gay tolerance.’
Although Bill doesn’t choose to quote it, in the very next sentence of her alternet article Melissa described what she meant by being “against gay tolorance”:
In America, many Christian leaders actively pursue discriminatory legislation, seeking to limit the rights of the LGBT community throughout society.
This is all true. Does Bill think that the Pope has some right to take anti-gay stands — as he has more than once — and not be criticized for it? Is it somehow anti-Catholic to criticize the Pope for the political stands he’s taken?
On November 1, 2006, on her blogspot Shakespeare’s Sister, she referred to President Bush’s ‘wingnut Christofascist base’ when lashing out against religious conservatives.
The language is rude, but no ruder than language commonly used by right-wing bloggers, such as “baby-killer,” “feminazi” and “idiotarian.” So what? In the end, on either side, these words are attacking people for their political beliefs, and that’s fair game.
Some right-wingers will object that “Christofascist” — a variant on the right-wing term “Islamofascist” — is attacking people for their religion. My question to those people is, have you ever publicly objected to the term “Islamofascist” on those grounds?
In any case, “Christofascist” doesn’t refer to Christians in general; it refers specifically to right-wing Christians who support laws forcing non-Christians to follow conservative Christian beliefs (such as sodomy laws and pro-life laws). There’s nothing wrong with criticizing the conservative Christian movement for its politics, and that’s exactly what the term “Christofascist” does.
(And by the way, how is a term that refers to most right-wing Christians — including non-Catholic ones — and excludes all left-wing Christians — including Catholic ones – “anti-Catholic”?)
On February 21, 2006, she attacked religious conservatives again, this time saying, ‘What don’t you lousy motherf—ers understand about keeping your noses out of our britches, our beds, and our families?’
Wow, is this getting weak. Yes, she got mad at religious conservatives for supporting laws that she disagrees with. So what? That conservative Christians should stay out of people’s britches, beds and families is not an opinion that is outside the bounds of reasonable political debate.
Currently, the very first entry under ‘Greatest Hits’ on her website [where she brags about being appointed to Edwards’ campaign] is titled, ‘On C—s’. In her article she boasts that she is the ‘Queen C— of F–k Mountain.’
So wait — Bill is actually calling for someone to be fired from their job because they used the words “cunt” and “fuck” on their own private website? Yikes.
- Many right-wing Christian pundits and bloggers have argued that being pro-life will bring victory for their policy preferences in the long run, since pro-life Christians will have more babies than pro-choicer liberals. [↩]
Pingback: They're just words
Pingback: The Opine Editorials
Pingback: culturekitchen | fresh dissent served daily
no shit. what an asshole. i don’t give two craps about democrats half the time, but if Edwards were to dump Amanda or Melissa over something like this, I’d give up on the mofos for life.
I know almost nothing about John Edwards, except that he’s a politician. (I deliberately refrain from using up any good time learning about politicians who will eventually give up or be eliminated from whatever race we’re talking about; I wait until either I am asked to vote in a primary and my vote matters (as a Democrat in California this has not happened in living memory) OR, the two parties have finally decided who’s running. They I’ll learn about those two guys.) (Do I take it that John Edwards wants to be President?)
Knowing ONLY that he is a politician, and assuming that he’d like to be President, I know further that he will hire or fire whomsoever and do whatsoever he thinks will play to the biggest audience. If he thought he’d make some mileage by hiring the Grand Kleagle or Whatever of the KKK as a press secretary, I’m assuming he’d do it.
So. The Catholics think they can play to this attitude of his by making a Big Noise. People who oppose the Catholic position on whatever are also going to make a Big Noise. Please not to think that John Edwards will make any decision on the basis of what he really believes, if he really believes anything, which is highly unlikely. (He believes he’d like to be President. That’s probably about it.) He will do whatever he thinks will get him closer to being President.
So. Everyone who cares about who John Edwards has for blogmistress should certainly make as much noise as they can. Just don’t think you’re going to convince Mr. Edwards that your position is right, or correct. He doesn’t care.
Just to clarify, not “The Catholics.” The organization going after Amanda and Melissa is an organization of far right-wing Catholics; I don’t believe they represent Catholics as a whole.
I’ve already given up on the democrats for life. Edwards would be a chickenshit if he caves in on this.considering that right-wing rhetoric tends to be more vicious by a factor of about 10 when it comes to getting nasty.
Also I agree that Catholic doctrine shouldn’t be immune from being made fun of. But just to make sure that we aren’t engaged in one-sided Catholic bashing, let’s exchange Muhammad’s and one of his wives for Mary and the Lord, and make some jokes about “hot, sticky, spunk”. Then when the person gets called an Islamophobe or maybe even gets death threats, liberals will vigorously come to those people’s defense.
Pingback: The series of tubes have spoken… at PunkAssBlog.com
—–The “Q” part of the “Q&A” is (literally speaking) obscene, and it makes fun of Catholic doctrine. But so what? Official Catholic doctrine shouldn’t be immune from being made fun of.
But is it politically wise?
— Nor is Amanda’s point — which is, as I read it, that those Catholics who support misogynistic policies aren’t forced to do so by Catholicism, but are instead just using Catholicism as a post-hoc rationalization for their own misogyny — in any way anti-Catholic.
It assumes bad faith on the part of catholics and I believe assumes it incorrectly. Most pro-life catholics really do believe fetus=baby. Really. No joke. I’m sure that there are charlatans, opportunists and machiavellian types in the Church and in the pro-life movement in general, but really, the rank and file everyday catholic that votes against pro-choice candidates no matter what other social justice causes that would benefit them those candidates support, would vote against them for letting babies get aborted. You can accuse them of being misogynist for this until you’re blue in the face, it won’t do any good, fetus=baby.
What a great post! You’re the first person I’ve read who’s taken on these ridiculous “accusations” point-by-point. Great work.
drydock is onto something. About bashing Catholics being OK, and bashing Islam isn’t. What’s sauce for the goose has got to be sauce for the gander, or one starts to suspect an Agenda.
Since people keep accusing Amanda of hating men, it amuses me that her critics seem to consider semen so dirty that linking it to the Holy Ghost is an insult. Drydock, I feel confident Amanda would agree with me that Mohammed’s mother had filthy sex and received that hot, sticky spunk. But if that doesn’t do it for you, I’ll add these verses from my religion’s first holy book (not endorsed by anyone anywhere):
badteeth, in the context of Plan B, it doesn’t matter what anyone thinks about a fetus that doesn’t exist yet. Even the status of a fertilized egg seems of dubious relevance. Only the Church’s views on semen definitely matter. Presumably this explains the implication that church opponents of emergency contraception worship semen, or think it can create a child by itself. (And yet they refuse to accept the clear implications of their position. Sacredness cannot be an insult unless all images and names of God are an insult.)
I should have said, “are blasphemy.”
hf – My point isn’t really about Amanda. If attacking (or mocking) religious doctorine is okay, and I think it is, then let’s put all religion on the table for scrutiny. No PC liberal inconsitencies in my book, ok?
Drydock,
I think all religion is okay to mock, and atheism is okay to mock, too. When have I ever said otherwise?
On the general subject of double standards, I think this post by Hilzoy – comparing the recent kerfuzzle regarding Amanda to the Danish cartoon controversy – is excellent. From Hilzoy’s post:
Typical double standard.
When the super bowl runs an add about Snickers that offends the Gay community, it has to be taken off the air. When saying “Merry Christmas” in public, or “One nation under God” in the pledge of allegiance, offends other religous groups, Schools and other public organizations have to use other words, or remove these words.
It seems that if you’re a liberal, you EXPECT your view to be the ONLY view, and you’re protecting people’s rights. However, if you’re a conservative, and you express your view, it’s for political reasons and you’re attacking someone.
Can’t have it both ways people.
“You can accuse them of being misogynist for this until you’re blue in the face, it won’t do any good, fetus=baby.”
That doesn’t explain the Catholic Church hierarchy’s plainly misogynistic opposition to contraception. “Every sperm is sacred….” is a disturbingly accurate description of official policy. This official position is of course contrary to the saner views of many if not most Catholics.
Of course, it’s arguable that the rampant misogyny comes from the rampant fear of and hatred of sex (women being blamed for sex quite consistently) rather than the other way around, but since they reinforce each other, it’s hard to sort them out.
“Making Sense”: strawman argument, again.
‘When saying “Merry Christmas” in public, or “One nation under God” in the pledge of allegiance, offends other religous groups, Schools and other public organizations have to use other words, or remove these words.’
The problem in this case is not with individuals saying these words. Feel free. The problem is with children being *coerced* into saying these words. There’s a major difference between
(a) you saying “I believe this is one nation under God”, and
(b) you ordering *my* children to either chant along with “one nation under God” or face ostracism. Which is what happens in public schools.
–That doesn’t explain the Catholic Church hierarchy’s plainly misogynistic opposition to contraception. “Every sperm is sacred….” is a disturbingly accurate description of official policy. This official position is of course contrary to the saner views of many if not most Catholics.
This is what baffles me about Amanda’s joke. About her thinking behind it.
Why piss off people who already to a degree agree with you? (They might not all agree that its plainly misogynistic but they still think the official church position on contraception is a holdover old-school tradition that no longer applies.) Why burn a potential bridge? Is it not enough to get the votes and the policy change? Do you have to “correct their thinking” as well?
Or was she just not aware of the dichotomy between what American Catholics do believe and what the official Church position is?
Or was she just having a Lenny Bruce moment?