During the fight with the Republican Noise Machine last week over the stunning revelation that junior staffers for John Edwards have the gall to disagree with the theological doctrine of the Virgin Birth
What Amanda and Michele wrote had nothing to do with the Virgin Birth, a significant part of Christian theology that even many progressive Christians on your side of this issue believe in. (I do not.)
What Amanda wrote was that the reason why the Catholic Church opposes abortion is to force women to carry more tithing Catholics to term. Essentially she said that Catholic abortion opponents are doing it to make money. That is offensive to many people, and not just Catholics. It should be recognized as an offensive comment and noted as such.
I have yet to see a comment from Michele that actually rises to anything other than strong language, but Amanda's comment was serious.
I fully support Edwards hiring Amanda and Michele on his staff, and keeping Amanda on his staff after the kerfluffle over her statements. I believed your last post before Edwards made his statement on the issue was excellent and said so to many friends and bloggers.
But just because jackasses like Malkin and Donohue were the ones pushing this issue doesn't change the fact that Amanda had something to apologize for. There are many, many progressive Christians out there who work very hard for the same goals and causes you do who were hurt by what she said and the subsequent minimization of that fact.
This obfuscation of what Amanda wrote, the minimization of the offensive nature of the writing, and the ridiculing of those who found them offensive accomplishes nothing and alienates friends. There is no need for it, it doesn't help the movement or progressive goals, and I hope that those progressives who are not Christians and find us Christians quaint, weird, nuts or whatever will at least respect our feelings on this.
I have a quibble with this. The criticism of the Church or Vatican was indeed that their positions on both abortion and contraception are motivated by self-interest. But that doesn't mean that individual Catholics have the same motivation for opposing those anti-natal policies.
You can't transfer cynicism about the Pope to cynicism about all Catholics.
If Catholics are offended at the suggestion that the Vatican sets its policies with an eye toward swelling their ranks, that's understandable. But it is not the same thing as suggesting that every Catholic thinks that way.
If the accusation is directly insulting to the rank and file it is in suggesting that they are unwitting.
I can see that, and understand it.
However, when people attack some folks in the netroots we all rally around. For many Catholics attacking the Pope or the Church leadership is attacking themselves.
All I am suggesting is that a little more care in discussing things that people hold dear -- including progressive people -- is probably in order.
Bloggers are snarky and quick with a quip, and that can get us into trouble sometimes. Snark is great when it moves the issues forward, but when it is gratuitous -- as I think Amanda's was -- then it is just hurtful and doesn't put us in a good light.
Rudy Giuliani is a walking insult to Catholicism. He's twice divorced. He conducted a very public affair with a mistress. He supports abortion rights.
This isn't some obscure blogger saying naughty words. This is the presidential candidate himself engaging in behaviors that are deeply repulsive to the same subset of Catholics that were theoretically offended by Marcotte's words.
Have you heard ANY stories about these Catholics registering public complaints about Rudy Giuliani's anti-Catholic lifestyle choices?
Why not?
What can we learn from that?
Ahh, MasterJack, you know where I will go with this.
Giuliani is a right-winger and will be treated like one of the family.
I don't care. What the right wing jerks say and do and how hypocritical they are is a given to me. We can stop them by winning elections and bringing people to our point of view, not by complaining that they missed targets on their own side.
My point is that we cannot accept the same intolerant and hurtful remarks from our side that we will not accept from the other side. In a sense, that is exactly what you are complaining about with Guiliani.
Donohue and Malkin and the rest are sons of bitches who shouldn't be given the platforms they have.
We are better than them, but being better is not enough. We shouldn't grade ourselves on a curve with their behavior included, but on our vision of right and wrong.
That's the problem.
You can either work to get Democrats friendly to progressive Christians get elected, which means occasionally gritting your teeth and letting an idle offensive remark by a third party go, or you can duly wallow in being offended, broadcast your victimhood as loudly as possible, and undermine said Democrat.
The right looks at the big picture. The left doesn't.
That's why the right wins.
We're bogged down in a disastrous Iraq war, the poor in this country are getting screwed, the deficit is out of control, working people are feeling a huge pinch, but hey, at least you got to tell the world how offended you were by Maricotte's comments. I'm sure it was all worth it.
I was wrong about the Virgin Birth thing, and apologize to Chris. I just saw there was a new kerfluffle from the idiot right about Amanda's review of Children of Man.
My apologies Chris. I was wrong to single this post out.
