"Donahue may have a point?" Wow. Talk about completely tumbling into the right-wing frame.

  That's pathetic. I expect that kind of mushiness from Hillary Clinton and her ilk, but an (ostensible) member of the progressive netroots has no excuse for not knowing better than to "argue" like that.

 This would be much better: "Citing bottom-feeders like Bill Donohue as a spokesman for Catholics is like citing Louis Farrakhan as a spokesman for African-Americans, or David Duke as a spokesman for Southerners."

That's exactly right. The problem that I see is that they are Christian first, progressive second. They will say that being an Christian is never incompatable with being progressive, and that someone like Donohue doesn't represent the faith. Yet, as I see it, when someone like Donohue starts on the attack, there is never a full forced attack on him by Christian progressives. In part, I feel this  is because he is Christian. You will hear arguments about respect, and other such language. This serves to blunt what they do, and in the process, show there really is a conflict between the two group indentity, and one of them, their faith, wins out although they won't aknowledge that it does.

To Donahue,

The bloggers apologized.  Isnt it Catholic to forgive?  

Besides you dont speak for Catholics only for your right wing group.  In fact The Catholic Church should let you stop using the word Catholic in your group name because you are giving it a bad name.

it's the headline story at politico today.

"We're completely invisible to this debate," said Eduardo Penalver, a Cornell University law professor who writes for the liberal Catholic journal Commonweal. He said he was dissatisfied with the Edwards campaign's response. "As a constituency, the Christian left isn't taken all that seriously," Penalver said.

Democrats -- and Edwards in particular -- have embraced the language of faith and the imperative of competing with Republicans for the support of religious voters. His wife, Elizabeth Edwards, even sits on the board of the leading organization of the religious left, Call to Renewal. But in private conversations and careful public statements today, religious Democrats said they felt sidelined by Edwards' decision to stand by his aides.

Matt,

It's Donohue, two "o's" no "a".

Jesse Lava here at Faithful Democrats.  I'm a little confused by this post, Matt.  First of all, the FD post to which you link isn't an editorial statement by "Jesse Lava and Faithful Democrats."  It's an individual post by Tom Donnelly.  Second, the entire post is (and is cited as) a repost of an Eduardo Penalver piece from Commonweal.  Yes, Tom quotes it approvingly, but it's neither original nor, again, an editorial statement.  ("Editorial" in the sense of speaking for the site as a whole.)  Third, almost the entire post blasted Donohue; the very end said he had a point that the Edwards's bloggers had made anti-Catholic comments.  And indeed they had.  You are quoting the post as if Tom (and Eduardo) had mostly sided with Donohue, with a mere "caveat that Donohue isn't a nice guy."

In fact, when you demand the "ethical response" that "Donohue should be ignored because of his record," the post says exactly that:

"Donohue is probably not the best guy to be out policing blogs for civility. After all, this is the person who said 'Who really cares what Hollywood thinks? All these hacks come out there. Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews who hate Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular. It's not a secret, OK? And I'm not afraid to say it. ... Hollywood likes anal sex. They like to see the public square without nativity scenes. I like families. I like children. They like abortions.'"

So the post did what you asked, while daring to make the additional, final point that the Edwards bloggers had made some comments that were offensive to Catholics.  What's with the thin skin?

The Southern Poverty Law Canter http://www.splcenter.org/index.jsp has a section called The Intelligence Project that monitors hate groups -- read their latest:

The 'Synagogue of Satan'
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelrepo rt/article.jsp?aid=703

The New Crusaders
"... Organized into a network of more than a dozen organizations, scores of websites and several extremist churches and monasteries, radical traditionalists in the U.S. are preaching anti-Semitism to as many as 100,000 followers. A few, such as the lawyer for Terri Schiavo's family, Christopher Ferrara, are even movers and shakers in important right-wing Republican circles. ..."
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelrepo rt/article.jsp?aid=719

The Dirty Dozen
Traditionalist Catholic groups are scattered around America and the world. But only a handful preach anti-Semitic hatred.
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelrepo rt/article.jsp?aid=720

ANY religious extremism is WRONG!

this is a good one, too:
HAWKING RACISM
Racist Pat Buchanan Book Flying Off the Shelves
(thanks to the attention that the MSM gives to mr Buchanan!)
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelrepo rt/article.jsp?aid=718

Now one more question, please. Don't you think that Marcotte's posts were more of a critique of the insitution of the Catholic church (rather than Catholicism itself) and poltiical positions held by the church.

That is to say, don't you think it's possible to blast the pope and the church in however crude a way without bashing Catholicism?

If you answer is no, please explain to me why the comments were anti-Catholic. It's not enough to say people are offended. I'm looking to learn; but from were I stand I'm catching a whiff of prudery, humorlessness, and anti-intellectualism.

 If Ted Donnelly didn't think Edwards' statement was satisfactory, that's his prerogative. Different Catholics reacted to the blog posts in different ways, and they have every right to.

 The problem is that Donnelly apparently has missed sight of the LARGER goal here, which is to support candidates who advocate policies that are favorable to religious progressives. And John Edwards comes closer to such a platform that anyone else in the field, at this point. This wasn't a verbal slipup by Edwards himself that exposed him as a phony or anything; this was a long-ago blog post by a third party exhumed by the right for the purpose of dividing Edwards' support base and weakening his candidacy. And Donnelly seems to have fallen for it.

  I don't dispute Donnelly's right to be personally offended by the blog posts. But taking his offense public plays right into Donohue's hands, and undermines the long-term goals of progressive Christians. THAT'S the problem.

  I'm sure James Dobson has some serious personal issues with the life history of Rudy Giuliani. But Dobson will NOT make these complaints public if he calculates that Giuliani is the Republicans' best bet to capture the White House. Why can't the left understand the value of message discipline?

I think it's unfair to call any criticism of the Catholic church or its policies anti-Catholic.  It's not bigotry towards Catholics, it's criticism of the policies of a powerful organization.  In the same way, criticism of Israel's policies isn't necessarily antisemitic.

Now, the posts in question that cause this controversy use pretty mean language.  But it's a simple fact that if the Catholic church embraced the use of contraception, it would save thousands of lives and prevent untold suffering.  The church is very powerful in some developing countries where AIDS and other STDs are rampant, and where pregnancy for some can be very dangerous indeed.

Everyone posting seems to have pretty much made up their mind already, so I'm not sure how much good this will do.  But first off, I know it is classic blog practice to "summarize" another's post in the worst way possible, but everyone going off on the response of people who "agreed with Donohue" should really read the posts purporting to do so, especially the original post on faithfuldemocrats!  Some might mention Donohue, but they make their own claims and normally only mention Donohue to talk about how whacked and crazy he is.  When they mention him it is to explain that just because a crazy guy takes one position doesn't mean they must take the other.  Reading this string, that is a point which seems to be lost on most people who post.  Simply b/c Donohue criticized Edwards' decision doesn't mean we must all take the opposite position.  Are we really sheep who will have our actions and arguments dictated by a wacko like Donahue?  The Nazis were strong advocates of public education.  Stalin talked all the time about helping the poor.  It boggles my mind why all the people posting would want to give Donahue the power to decide our positions.  Yet at the core of most responses is the basic point that b/c Donohue criticized Edwards, we must defend him.  That argument is based on the assumption that sides are more important than principles, and I think that is a mistake.

Second, there is a lot of self-righteous criticism of people of faith for being upset over the hot, sticky Holy Spirit being injected into Mary's womb, "Christofascists," declarations that Catholics use mythology to justify their misogyny, etc.  A simple question, what if these remarks had been made about Jews or gays or African Americans?  We all know the calls to fire that blogger would have rung out loud and clear from the blogosphere, and rightly so.  Our Party needs to be an open Party, and our Presidential candidate needs to be able to appeal to a wide base of Americans to win.  If Kerry had not lost the Catholic vote in '04, he would have breezed into the Presidency.  In '06, Dems made major gains with that community and again reclaimed the Catholic vote, not to mention picking up votes from a number of other faith communities.  Why throw that away, and since when did our Party become one that openly endorses people who use deeming stereotypes to describe entire groups of Americans?

couldn't agree more- religion should have no part in politics but until that day comes the right should be fought hard, some appeased- the left still doesn't get it

right here:

http://www.streetprophets.com/storyonly/ 2007/2/8/13587/70426

I think Matt and some of the commenters here are missing a pretty basic point, though I generally agree that discrediting Donohue, once and for all, is a laudable goal.  

This isn't going to be about a bunch of blog posts deploring the political positions of the Catholic Church.  It's probably not going to be about McEwen's posts at all, or most of Marcotte's.  Mark my words, it's going to be mostly about the single Marcotte post with these lines:

Q: What if Mary had taken Plan B after the Lord filled her with his hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit?
A: You'd have to justify your misogyny with another ancient mythology.

One commenter probably had that in mind when he or she referred to some of the blog posts as "cringe-worthy," as did another who accurately suggested Marcotte was attacking not Vatican positions on abortion or birth control but a central theological tenet of Catholicism (and for that matter, of all orthodox Christianity).  

In the impending fight with the thug Donohue, which I'm all for waging aggressively, the real audience that matters is going to be rank-and-file Catholics who need to be disabused of the idea that organizations like the Catholic League in any way speak for them.  Liberal Catholics are the most credible spokespeople in this fight, and I don't think it does much good to lecture them on what they are allowed to admit or deny--or permit to be said on their web sites--in making that fight.  Give them some space.  

After all, nobody seems to be getting publicly angry at John Edwards for saying some of the posts personally offended him, right?  Whatever your personal opinion of the Christian Left, we're not going to win this one without them, period.  

There's a difference between Christianity, the "interest group" and the religion. There's a difference between people who "identify" with that interest group, and educated students of the Bible and the history of the Church.

I don't see any of the latter AT ALL except the author of this comment: http://www.mydd.com/comments/2007/2/7/17 2951/3053/126#126

Speaking as a Christian, I'm SORRY that Amanda and Melissa thought they had to apologize. I'm also sorry that Edwards licensed this business of being "offended" by their posts. Again, speaking AS A CHRISTIAN, I can't even give you an estimate of the number of times I have taken the Lord's name in vain (although to be fair to me I don't say the G-D word any more at all). Dirty jokes, racial and social stereotypes and slurs, descriptions of sexual practices - why go on? And I'm a highly educated teacher of your children!!

There is a fairly important technical point here - it couldn't be clearer that blogging is more closely related, by intention and in its social development to SPEAKING than to WRITING. People are always talking on dKos about how well diarists write. In which universe? Hunter could not sell even one of his diaries, much less a collection, to a for-profit publication - and I'll stop there. Blogging is like speaking, and the most casual kind of speaking at that. The whole argument about pseudonymity overlooks that fact that in real life we are so regimented that a lot of people would never manage to say what they feel unless they felt free to curse, swear, and talk gross.

As a matter of fact there are any number of dirty jokes IN THE BIBLE. You have to know what's up to get them, but they are there (mostly in the Old Testament). Let's get this straight. Jesus had a dick. He took it out to pee. He had an asshole and he shat from it. He may never have fucked or jerked off, but he probably did get wood. And he knew how people really are. There's no hint in the Bible of all his friends getting all clammed up whenever He walks in, as if He would punish them for being themselves.

Because Americans don't know what religion is anymore, or what it's for, stupid and evil people have taken over the franchise and fucked it up something fierce. However, God is going to punish Donohoe - or, more like, he's going to show him up in such a way that you will know He was on the case. At least you'll remember somebody saying this. He's toast as of now, I put my perfect prediction record on the line for it.

What people post on blogs should be compared to what they have ever said, like at a party, or in a steam room, or whatever. Humans are gregarious animals and they like to sniff each others butts like dogs. They like to blow stinky gas at each other like cows.

Furthermore! As I said in my above referenced post - Donohue is wrong on religious grounds. The worst thing we could be talking about here would be that Amanda had it in for God or Jesus - and that clearly is not so. Amanda doesn't write God Blows or Jesus is Shit. She writes something about the Holy Spirit getting a nut IN ORDER TO MAKE A SATIRICAL POINT. And religious people, monks, Popes, prophets of all kinds have always done this.

Put another way, there is nothing, but nothing, that is vulgar about the posts. Donohoe's rants are vulgar because he does not have the authority of the Church, but he clearly tries to cop to it.

The whole premise of Donohoe's attack is to try to co-opt political correctness - which wouldn't be what it is if it isn't correct, right? - by claiming that a "group" - in this case Catholics - has been "offended" by someone's speech. The only thing is, he has it all wrong.

When women are insulted, they deserve advocacy and defense because women deserve respect. When blacks are insulted, same thing. Idem for all such groups.

But when Christians are insulted - assuming that we have someone willing to stand up and say "Christians suck shit", which we DO NOT have in the case of Amanda - it does NOT work this way. Any and all true Christians are obligated to accept such comments with equanimity and love. There is not supposed to be any personal puffed-up-ness or PRIDE there, to be wounded by insults.

Christianity is not a country, it is not an army, it is not an interest group, it cannot be insulted, it does not need to be defended. And what Edwards said was tantamount to washing Amanda's mouth out with gentle soap prior to her coming on board. And I assume she allowed herself to undergo that mild humiliation because she genuinely wants to improve the lot of suffering mankind, and thinks John Edwards might be able to do something in that direction.

That is, Amanda is good people; she is on the right side of things. God knows this and loves her for it.

As for Donohoe, you don't see any priests or prelates jumping up and down to defend him.

You guys have a problem. Every single one of your Presidential candidates is a Christian. Not just for show, but they actually compete to see which one is the biggest Christian (hint - it's the most educated one). And yet you treat Christianity as some sort of disease of the intellect because you only interact with "Christians" who express the sense of religious teachings badly.

Someone was teasing a candidate the other day about not being as cutting-edge as some with regard to blogging and the netroots. I thought that was funny, really. It's entirely possible that the whole complex phenomenon is in the process of re-morphing right now, such that you will never get the opportunity to refine everything (media attack, raid response, meetups, blog as ATM, solidarity of the netroots as such, crystaliization of political blog communities, etc.) into a technique that you can get paid to administer.

This all reminds me of the Internet guru who told me the Internet would increase the degree of political freedom - told me in 1993. Blogging is just communication. The netroots are just people who blog. We have an Overlord who admitted quite candidly the other day - after saying that he collected degrees as a hobby - that he wasn't into  POLICY. Well, that wasn't a shock. It was valuable candor.

He understands that he's trying to refine a technique. He likes to hide stuff he does under things that the Great God Pan of the Intertubes - who immanentizes the eschaton - does. Like revamping the blogroll. In fact setting up the state blogs shows clearly where he's going. And the further he goes, the clearer it is that it is just technique and machinery that could be used by either side (and I would like to specify that to me Christianity is not a side). The blogosphere is ours, as someone said, we just let the Right play in it for our own amusement.

But it didn't start out that way. What could possibly guarantee durability for the pact between blogging, satire, blunt speech and the Left? Nothing except a broad policy front that not only comes true but works. Successful government in a developing world.

Continued in another post.

The religious left has stepped up--including Jesse Lava and Faithful Democrats. You miss the point, willfully. It's the same category of reasoning as  a righty denying a fact is true because it was first reported by the Nation. The comments by Pandagon were Howard Stren like, stupid and offensive. Edwards gets that, she has apologized and admitted it, too.

Here's an example of Jesse stepping up:

A Call for Interfaith Reconciliation
Let Rep. Virgill Goode know that his attacks on Muslims are not acceptable. Please add your name to this petition, which will be hand-delivered to Rep. Goode's office.
http://faithfulprogressive.blogspot.com/ 2007/01/call-for-interfaith-reconciliati on.html#comments

I  predicted all of this 2 years ago:

I wrote about this exact situation nearly two years ago: An Open Letter to Liberal Bloggers:

So here's our advice, which I seriously doubt will be followed, but which I hope you will at least consider before you post some anti-religious screed on a blog or snark about people of faith of the left or right. Please remember that there are tens of millions of us black, white and brown Americans whose participation in the political system is largely inspired by our religious and moral values. Please remember that we have been involved in every struggle for justice, peace and civil rights this country has ever had and that many of those battles would not have been won without these efforts. Unlike some on the religious right, moderate and progressive people of faith do not seek to tell you how to live your own life. But we do demand respect, just as we attempt to give it to others who disagree with us.
http://faithfulprogressive.blogspot.com/ 2005/04/open-letter-to-liberal-bloggers. html

We will continue to take on the religious right. MY DD should take this pledge: I will not allow anti-religious like idiocy in my posts or in my comments? Yes or no?

Let me give an instructive example.

The left bloggers have explicitly approved Edwards' mild smackdown of Amanda. Why? Because it appears to them to be a proper reaction, given the reality of the conventional wisdom about the MSM-ospheric to such speech. None of THEM are offended by the speech in question (the blog posts). But they approve Edwards saying he was. He had to say that, because the CW predicts that a lot of people would be less likely to vote for Edwards if he didn't - or at least that was the proper way to make the incident fall off the radar as quickly as possible.

This is so easy to agree on - and yet in order to agree on it you have to split your tongue so you can talk out of both sides of your mouth at once.

Bloggers constantly harp on the difference between them and the MSM. The MSM fails to fact check. The MSM caters to power. The MSM practices the sociology of missing white women, and a variety of techniques intended to slant the news toward drama and soundbites instead of policy and discussion.

And yet your entire analysis often consists is following their same analysis, even if the purpose is to counter its effects or avoid its consequences. The point is that "their" frame of reference, CW, is always taken for granted. So how can it ever really change?

Already, a major blogger has been subjected to a sort of enema. A cleansing. Already people are rummaging in their archives. Or not. But the precedent was established by nothing more than the feral violence and vulgarity of the assault by Donohoe.

They scored. But it would now be wrong to conclude that because they scored, we need to ramp up our rapid response. It seems that way. There's no harm in responding.

But the principle that needed defending was that people should feel free to speak, and not to fear "rectifying" themselves later. We of the Left can take pride, if you like, that our pursuit of the slightest whiff of pie in someone's words has left a lot of people wiser - about holding their tongues. But as a result, when they find an outlet, it has to be violent like this. We can't educate them as long as we RHETORICIZE THE SPANISH INQUISITION (pun at your own risk). And they for their part have it going on the other way.

The long term CW in such a case is that public discourse breaks down completely. Whether this has happened because our culture has been vulgarized, or the other way round, I don't know.

I just note that the Christian response you're asking for here, you already got it from your candidate.

And it was actually the wrong one and you fucking well know it. But politically you think it was the right one. You even hung a medal around that Dr. Phil soundalike's neck.

And that's...OK. (h/t Al Franken) But there was more to say.

One of these days we should take back part of the mental area of the United States in the name of freedom.

I'm talking about the crawl, or what some people are calling the third third or something. The bottom of the TV picture. One of these days you'll be able to have a crawl that says: "Doubt what you're hearing? Wanna hear the other side, NOW? Push * 11...," etc. In other words, some day, people will not be so susceptible to the first powerfully expressed version of things they're exposed to...

...or don't you think so? I see a bifurcation in the left blogosphere I don't like. The bloggers at Sadly, No! call it a "comedy blog" now. The assumption is that there is a "Left humor" that can be found chez the Editors, the General, and so on. But dKos and My DD, while continuing to post a good deal of general interest items, seem to be developing a social-science model that buiilds on the lessons of the campaign.

This is like crashing the gate and getting a new gate. Why? Because the number of settled policy points are too few. We used to despair of ever having our "message" refined like the Right's: "Low taxes, strong defense, small government, secure borders" (Or whatever you thought the fourth element was) Well, don't we now have "universal healthcare, no loser wars, no torture, woman's right to choose"? And yet this is not nearly enough to govern.

I have read a lot of "systems" in sociology. Many of them end up making use of existing methods of control over the psychology (sic) of various populations. And they all promise that things will be better, at least, if we do what they recommend, and give our power of choice to them.

I think finally that this must have something to do with Atrios' continued use of the dirty hippy theme. Among the hippies, there were those who at least laid claim, among Americans, to the title of philosopher. Philosophically speaking, the thing you want to leave out of your comparison to Rome is the time scale. Things happen faster now. There is such a gap between the CW about policy and the reality of policy. The entire "guns vs. butter" dichotomy may give way. America's entire economy vis a vis the rest of the world could suddenly feel very vulnerable.

We are going to have to sell America culture and education - things it knows little about since it has been induced to purchase their knock-off versions. You think heads should roll in the Defense Department? Hospitals sell fake health care. Universities sell fake degrees (and I'd really like to see Kos' collection some time...). Lawyers sell fake justice and fake judges mete it out.

Strike three game over.  

The real honest to God political blogosphere is like a machine that runs really well as long as there is a human standing there the whole time. Because the machine only properly interprets reality within a certain range of phenomena. Who cares what the gauge says after the water heater blows up.

I will tell the Bill Joy story again. Bill Joy of Sun Microsystems was known as the "adult in the room" in the ranks of computer geniuses. Back when the "gray goo" scare was going around he went on NPR basically to say that we need an ethics panel for nanotechnology. He was serious.

But then he admitted that he was unable to figure out the ethics of the situation.

Here's a poser: suppose you could transplant a brain into someone else's head. Who would that person be?

The answer is, ask me again in about two hundred years. But no one living will ever be able to accomplish such a thing, except as the equivalent of hooking up a frog to a hot wire. Is there such a thing as a conceivable experiment that should never be carried out?

Think before you answer.

Many people think science is the cure for the problem represented by religion. Few think religion might be of help with regard to something science tends to screw up.

The left blogosphere has a seminal connection to corrosive intellectual humor. It also has a connection to a sort of belief in the invincibility of science.

I'm not talking about the ignorant travesties around creationism and the like. The only shame there is that the left blogosphere has not been able to make those people into complete laughingstocks (not for want of trying).

But there is a problem with science and technology that people who live on the Internet have a certain structural difficulty realizing.

Let's just put it in brief. You have a responsibility to figure out what affects the CW, and how, and to put this knowledge at the service of Democratic candidates, and to lobby for its recognition.

But you also have a responsibility, let's call it cultural or social, to think up the perfect system of distributive governance, and lobbying for that as well. For example, where is the campaign for mandatory voting? Who's AGAINST that? And why?

Internet technology doesn't just bring us fun blog posts. It brings the commercial camel of television even further into the tent of our heads.

So many people and so many machines, all claiming loudly to bring me freedom. Is it liberal or conservative if I say that TV is a waste of time?

Can science really tell us how to rebuild our culture out of its ruins? can the CW?

Even the "normal business" of science in this country is as corrupt as anything else - tainted by commercial applications, by military applications, by corporate desires.

Real religion is no longer set up to oppose science, as it once was, centuries ago. Rather, the people who work in science and technology, like Bill Joy, have been brought to the realization that culture is an organism that escapes their models. It appears from the political standpoint that culture can be gamed, led by the nose, bamboozled - but on the other end, once it appears that culture has been damaged there is no short term fix for it.

Religion, art, and culture emphasize the importance of the whole human being, apart from technology and connectivity. In some ways, we are all wearing the diaper. Instead of thinking that the blogosphere is the new kid on the block but here to stay, we should be pushing for more agreement on policy.

What I think, though, is that it's still going to take a candidate to do it. I said a long time ago, and I can prove it, that I hate the personality cult. I'd rather vote for a policy front than a candidate. But the sociological reality of America - so damaged, so unaware - has convinced me that there has to be a candidate who can reveal the world to us - not the world of the CW!! but the one that is there beyond the atrocities of our televised wars. A candidate who can give an example of how to live your own religion in your own life without the slightest need for the attempts of ambitious preachers to organize Christians into an army of illiterate idiots.

A candidate who can Sister Soul'jah the Church when the time comes. But a candidate who realizes that the age of rapid development in technology may well be OVER - and the day may come when we wonder why we thought so much about it, there are so many things technology induced us to miss completely.

So until the self-described religious left decides to stop letting bigoted and extreme right-wingers talk for them, they are no different than the religious right they pretend to oppose.

Matt, you're a dick.

And a self-defeating one at that.

Until the self-described progressive* left decides to stop misrepresenting the views of the religious left, they are no different than the religious right they pretend to oppose.

* And really, Matt, as far as I can tell there is nothing progressive about you.  You're just another belt-way pundit who is clueless about how the rest of the world works -- Broder's illegitimate child.

I posted a reply here: http://faithfulprogressive.blogspot.com/ 2007/02/encouraging-responses-on-edwards .html

Excerpt:

The author of this post is so badly informed that it is hard to even take it seriously enough to reply. Say what? The religious left doesn't take on the religious right? Guess not, and cats and dogs always get along just great, too. Faithful Democrats has done exactly that over and over. Any reader of this blog or any of those listed on our side panel knows how much time we devote to addressing the religious right. If anything, in my view, we spend too much time taking on and exposing the right and too little time putting forth an alternative and tolerant spiritual world view.

Mr. Stoller's conviction that there can be only "one" moral response to a situation is the absolute height of intolerance and arrogance. Such cocksure moral certainty is exactly the way the religious right expresses itself. No religious liberal would ever compose such a sentence--because their world view recognizes the limits of our own ability to peceive "the truth."

But what I find most disturbing is the absolute unwillingness of people like Mr. Stoller to admit that people on the left can engage in hate speech and can needlessly offend both allies and potential ones just as easily as extremists on the right. Edwards said the quotes offended him, and the bloggers in question have apologized. They have accepted responsibility for their posts. But people like Matt Stoller can only see that the source of the quotes was a bigot himself, so whatever he says should be dismissed--even when there is no dispute that his claims this time were true! That is a staggering and disturbing level of moral blindness that, fortunately, appears to be very much a minority and marginal point of view even on the most strident liberal blogs.

http://faithfulprogressive.blogspot.com/ 2007/02/encouraging-responses-on-edwards .html