Getting old.
I hesitate to give this any space at all, but here goes. Another Obama-hates-Jesus meme is spreading around the conservative blogosphere. An outfit called CNSNews (no relation to Catholic News Service) published a piece claiming that, at the request of the White House, Georgetown covered the religious iconography behind the stage at Gaston Hall, where President Obama delivered his economic speech yesterday. (Yes, the same address in which the president quoted the Sermon on the Mount.)
Never missing an opportunity to slam Obama, Bill Donohue fired off a press release titled “Obama Nixes ‘Jesus’ at Georgetown.” Set your phasers for outrage:
The cowardice of Georgetown to stand fast on principle tells us more than we need to know about what is going on there, but the bigger story is the audacity of the Obama administration to ask a religious school to neuter itself before the president speaks there. No bishop who might speak at the White House would ever request that a crucifix be displayed behind him. Moreover, the same church and state fanatics who go nuts every time a polling place is set up in the basement of a Catholic school have been noticeably silent over this incident.
That might be because earlier today David Brody debunked the story.
In a statement to The Brody File, The White House says any suggestion that the administration purposely covered a cross and a Catholic religious monogram during President Obama’s speech this week at Georgetown are “simply false.”
Back to the Justice League:
Obama is in enough trouble with Catholics…that it seems almost suicidal for his administration to push the envelope one more time. This is getting old fast.
Yes, it certainly is.
I’m so confused. Wasn’t I supposed to be angry that Obama was speaking at Georgetown? (Delivering an economic policy address, but still.) Isn’t that the moment G-town abandoned its principles, etc.? So then, shouldn’t I be glad they didn’t provide an obviously Catholic backdrop for Obama’s anti-Catholic positions? It is getting hard to keep up with the reasons I’m outraged and insulted.
“No bishop who might speak at the White House would ever request that a crucifix be displayed behind him.” In this not-at-all-analogous hypothetical, is the bishop’s behavior forthright or cowardly? I await further instructions.
If there’s any cowardice here. it’s the bully Donahue speaking from his bubble.
I spoke with Julie Green Bataille the university’s spokesperson about this issue early this morning. She explained to me what had happened. The White House wanted the background for the President’s speech that they standardly use, a blue curtained background with a row of American flags in front of it. When they constructed the pipes on which to hang the curtain the structure was not high enough to cover the pediment in the middle of the stage, which has at its center the university seal and above it the IHS that is featured as part of the Jesuit seal. It did not look right to them to have the pediment sticking up behind the curtain, seeming suspended in mid-air since you could not see the rest of the structure on which it rests, so they covered the front of it with a piece of black plywood to integrate it into the backdrop. That piece of wood naturally covered the gilded IHS. It was nothing more than that, but bloggers willfully placed the worst interpretation on what had been done, and their interpretation spread over the internet.
Here’s the real question of the day. Will they place a cover over “Touchdown Jesus” when the president speaks at the Notre Dame graduation???
Mr. Wilson,
That is not the “real question of the day,” and If you had read and understood my post you would not have asked that question. At Georgetown they did not cover the IHS for your implied reason. I suppose if there were a need to cover the entire building on which the “Touchdown Jesus” is located that would be a more apt analogy. I do not expect that that will happen. Willful misinterpretation is not helpful in this matter.
What I think is getting real old real fast is paying the slightest bit of attention to whatever Donahue says at any time about anything to anyone.
Althought I don’t have personal experience, I have been told by those that do that even a small child learns sooner or later that if their crying and screaming is ignored long enough, they may as well shut up.
Bill, shut up!
Hello All,
I disagree with Jimmy slightly. Like Jimmy, I think that at this point most of what Donohue says is not worth the attention of participants here. But in this case I think Grant’s post is quite worthwhile because of Mr. Mitchell’s fine contribution. And now that I’ve read it, I’ve had my fill of Donahue-discussion for the month.
Thankfully Bill Donohue is around to tell us Catholics when we are supposed to be offended. With friends like him, who needs enemies?
Mr. Wilson,
In a private email, it has been brought to my attention by a fellow poster on this blog that your comment about Touchdown Jesus may have been tongue-in-cheek and intended playfully. If that was what you intended please accept my sincere apology for my response. I have already seen similar comments about TD Jesus on some of the right wing Catholic blogs, and that probably shaped my reaction to what you had posted. I like to think that I have a good sense of humor, and so I am doubly embarrassed and distressed if I missed a signal here. I mean no offense to you.
I also wrote at Beliefnet about this issue, also with great hesitation, but doing so because this was clearly going viral and it is often better to set the record straight rather than let an urban legend spread, even at the risk of spreading the news.
The Catholic League was only the latest entrant in the hubbub. The Washington Times has a piece:
http://washingtontimes.com/weblogs/belief-blog/2009/apr/15/obama-at-georgetown-the-mystery-of-the-missing-sig/
And CWNews is headling the story, and the blogospeher is picking it up.
Mr. Gibson,
I have posted the following at your excellent Beliefnet site:
Thank you for you sane post in this “non-issue”. Your hunch is correct because when the local Jewish community uses Gaston Hall, as they do every year, to celebrate the High Holy Days, out of respect for Jewish sensibilities, the IHS is covered up. Unfortunately, your sense that the situation was going viral has materialized. I would say it is now toxic.
Alan Mitchell, thanks for that. I also just added some fotos of the scene, and one has to strain to see a problem. Indeed, many shots of Obama with the stained glass behind him look churchier than anything.
I wish I had noted also that of course Obama cited the Sermon on the Mount, and the more obvious point that if he had been photographed beneath a cross or “IHS” he would have been blasted for a messiah complex or coopting Christian symbols for his devilish ends…
Mr. Gibson,
The photos are very helpful. The blogger who started the whole thing off actually claimed that the IHS had been painted over. I looked at the C-Span tape of the talk and thought that the entire pediment had been covered in cloth, but that was not the case.
”
I noticed typos in my post. “You” should be “your” and “in should be “on.” As I posted elsewhere on this blog recently I am a lousy typist.
And by “claim,” you mean, CNS quoted the Vice President of Communications at Georgetown?
Maybe she’s just a right-winger who has it out for Georgetown as well.
No, I don’t. The story obviously implies that the religious iconography was covered because it’s religious. (Read the headline.) That’s just how Donohue saw it.
Alan. my tongue was in my cheek! Sorry that I set you off. Jim
I’m confused. Was the imagery covered up or not?
Of course, instead of covering up anything for whatever reason, Obama could have simply given his speech in a place other than one filled with religious images, like a gym or basketball arena, where many of his speeches are given. It seems rather odd to want to use a religious forum, and then block out the religion by putting up backdrops.
Grant, are you denying that the White House requested that Georgetown cover it? Seriously?
Here’s the quote from extremist rightwinger Glenn Beck clone Julie Green Bataille, the Vice President of Communications at Georgetown:
In coordinating the logistical arrangements for yesterday’s event, Georgetown honored the White House staff’s request to cover all of the Georgetown University signage and symbols behind Gaston Hall stage.
That’s not a “claim,” Grant. That’s a direct quote.
What is this “extreme rightwinger clone” claptrap? Your point is what? I was trying to hide the truth you see by linking to the story so anyone can read it? No one should be distracted by this move.
Is that your answer? I’m joking about the Vice President being a stooge of the far right.
I’ll ask a second time. Are you denying that the White House requested they cover it up given that direct quote?
I’m surprised that you’re characterizing a direct quote as a “claim.”
Keep asking, George. I linked to the story for all to read. My view is that the story is spun to give the false impression that the president wanted the religious symbols covered because they are religious–for a speech in which he quoted the Sermon on the Mount. That is how it’s played in the conservative blogosphere, as shown by Donohue’s press release.
Okay, sounds good. So you deny that the White House made the request to cover it.
It’s funny. I’m not even asking about the reason for covering it. Just if the request occured.
Funny in the same way a filibuster amuses. I have denied nothing, although by now it’s clear you want me to.
Regardless of your view, Mr. Gallicho, your story leaves the impression that the symbols were not covered up at all. Or if they were, then it was not the WH that asked for them to be covered up.
Would you clarify please –
Were the symbols covered up?
If so, who asked that they be covered up?
My story? Good grief. The articles I linked to provide the answers to your questions. Yes, it is standard operating procedure for the White House to ask for a uniform background for a presidential address (as it was during the campaign). No, it is not the case that the White House asked Georgetown to provide that backdrop because the venue contains many Christian symbols (as Donohue and others have asserted). What’s the confusion?
Why is it so important to you to deny the existence of a DIRECT QUOTE? It’s not even terribly incriminating. The White House asked them to cover it up.
Do you suggest that the Vice President of Georgetown made it up? Was she lying?
I have denied no such thing. How many times must I say so? Thus concludes your cross-examination.
This is like nailing jello to a tree.
Here is the direct quote from Georgetown’s VP of Comm:
In coordinating the logistical arrangements for yesterday’s event, Georgetown honored the White House staff’s request to cover all of the Georgetown University signage and symbols behind Gaston Hall stage.
Given this direct quote, is it accurate to say that CNS “claimed” that the White House requested that Georgetown perform standard press conference prep? Or is it rather a statement of fact?
Shame on you George Crosley. What would Georgetown’s VP of Communications know? She is probably a covert ops type planted by Donahue et al. You are not following protocol here, so please, get with the program OK?
George:
Trust me, Grant Gallicho will not admit anything. He was an adviser to Obama’s election campaign, don’t you know. Though he has a vested interest in the Obama administration, he’s a nice guy everything else notwithstanding. Go easy on him.
I guess if we wanted to be fully arcurate we should say – “misquoted the Sermon on the Mount”
Donohue gets it wrong. The “big story” is not whether “the White House requested” but about whether and why “Georgetown complied.” Our serious concerns are in-house; the rest is just political history.
Great that the right-wing trash talkers can use this blog to trash people. Classic tactic: Bray about some perceived flaw in the argument and then malign the entire person and class of people.
Give it a rest. CNSNews headline: “Georgetown Says It Covered Over Name of Jesus to Comply With White House Request.”
This is saying the White specifically asked for this specific arrangement in order to cover up evdience of Christianity. That’s not true. And in fact the Georgetown folks covered the pediment with IHS (as if anyone in the US would understand that) for aesthetic reasons. The entire room was set up as it would be for any such event. Would you rather Obama pose under a crucifix?
But the point of the post was the way the right-wing internet has run with this and ginned it up into more evidence of Obama’s perfidy. Bill Donohue’s statement, the Washington Times, blogs, etc. It’d be pitiful if it weren’t so ugly.
It probably won’t surprise anyone that the “Fox Nation” website was all over this “story.” But you do really need to see the screencaps that Media Matters has posted… Most especially the one with the headline “White House Denies Jesus Report: Believable?” (No. None of this is “believable.”)
Apparently what happened is that everything was set up, and the IHS was visible above the blue curtain. Obama came out to test the microphone, and suddenly smoke began emanating from his body and he began shrieking. Fortunately, as usual (except in public) he was wearing his big black cape, which he lifted with one arm to shield himself, and and he scurried from the stage. It was only at this point that the Secret Service demanded that the IHS be covered up.
There are a number of experts on the Secret Service who are supposed to protect the president from these kinds of threats. Reportedly, one of them had mistakenly believe the IHS stood for “In Hoc Signo” (In Hoc Signo Vinces — Latin: In this sign thou shalt win) and not Iota-Eta-Sigma (first three letters of Jesus in Greek). Whether or not that is true will be difficult to confirm, since the agent in question died in a freak accident later in the day.
What a little tempest in a teapot. This infantile yammering about covering up religious symbols when a perfectly reasonable explanation has been given and accepted by the grown-ups among us. Cross examining Grant Gallicho and sneering at his responses. What’s next? Calls for the resignation of Georgetown’s president? Rename the school? So far, no bishop has jumped on this unsavory bandwagon, and at least we can be grateful for that. Thank you David Gibson, Alan Mitchell et al, for keeping us informed.
Thank you, David Nickol! I knew there must be a reasonable explanation. (I was assuming it would be something more complicated, like “Covering anything in the background that would look odd on camera is standard procedure at these events…” but your account seems pretty obvious now that I think about it.)
Thank you, Rita for COMMON SENSE! The religious right here will clamor for charity for their craziness when criticized and then continue to practice idiocy.
Such ist he wondrful world of blogosphere/Fox News etc.
David Nickol,
Let me guess. They found the agent’s body at the bottom of a long flight of stairs on M Street and his head was on backwards.
Bob N.: I do not believe charity should be conditional upon craziness or idiocy of the object. Based on my understanding of the Fidei Depositum (FD), I think it would be quite improper to restrict charity to only those human persons who meet certain intellectual or mental requirements, or really any illness or malformity for that matter. I actually would argue the FD (defined herein, before people chastise me for my acronyms again) requires extra diligence in practicing charity in those instances.
I beleive common ground is impossible in the divided world we have in the Church at this point.
I think tolerate intolerance increases intolerance.
I think accepting prejudice and ignorance increases prejudice and ignorance.
I think we’ve allowed extremism to rule for far to long and extremism grows apace.
I think it’s charitable not to let that happen!
Alan,
Regarding the long flight of stairs leading to M street, I am not sure the Exorcist is quite as omnipresent in the minds of dotCommers (dotCommies?) as it is for those of us who have spent time within the gray walls of what will always be the oldest Catholic institution of higher education in the country.
Here’s a friday afternoon question–related, but, well,not. I wonder whether a Catholic school would be criticized for letting the Exorcist be filmed in the chapel today.
I have to say, that stuff creeps me out mightily.
How many people know that David Webb (a.k.a. Jason Bourne) is a professor of linguistics at Georgetown University? He is said to look exactly like Matt Damon.
Bob N.: What is it you desire “common ground” on? The FD? It seems to me like you are perhaps talking about the American political economy rather than the Salvation Economy – is that the case? If that is correct, I will go back to my Epictetus, if not, who are these extremists in the Church who are denying or corrupting the FD? From your phrase “rule” I presume you mean they are bishops.
Two observations on Obama at Georgetown, one from a Georgetown insider, Fr. James V Schall, SJ, and the other a secret memo from the Office of the Chief of Protocol, U. S. Department of State:
http://www.thecatholicthing.org/content/view/1476/
Patrick,
It is interesting that Fr. Schall did not try to determine what actually happened from University officials before writing his very negative piece, when Alan Mitchell in his post of April 16th, 2009 at 5:05 pm, had no trouble finding out what the truth was. Perhaps he didn’t really want an explanation.
I am baffled as to why some people perceive Obama as anti-Christian. Or maybe it’s not really a case of how they perceive him, but how they want to depict him. The correct word for it is slander, and it’s difficult not to conclude that’s what Fr. Schall is engaging in.
“I beleive common ground is impossible in the divided world we have in the Church at this point.”
Istm the Common Ground Initiative is perceived by those on the Right as having been hatched by the Left to corrupt its purity. I’ve never seen any enthusiasm for Common Ground on the Right. The Right isn’t interested in Common Ground, it’s interested in True Ground, and believes it already occupies it. The Right’s idea of Common Ground is scooting over a little bit so the Left can come over and join them on the True Ground.
As for the Left – it wants Just Ground. And so it pursues projects in the church that are, by their very nature, divisive. These projects are the very things that the Right finds so repellent about the Left. These projects are themselves, in large part, the cause of the divide. Women priests, gay marriage, remarriage without annulments, reduction of the clergy’s role and power, and so on.
David,
I have neither the time nor the interest to determine whether Alan Mitchell or Father Schall is more accurate about “what really happened.” At any rate I don’t think anyone would or should take my judgment . But I do attribute good faith to both professors and therefore am much less inclined to discern slander where you apparently feel no hesitation. I do think Fr. Schall’s main point should not be overlooked:
“What interests me here is this: If this president speaks at a Jewish Synagogue, or a Baptist church, or the Crystal Cathedral, or the Muslim Mosque on Massachusetts Avenue, the Ravens Stadium, the George Washington University, the headquarters of Planned Parenthood, or the hall of the local Atheist Society, will the same policy be followed?”
Allow me one facetious suggestion. There are some very fine Greek Revival Catholic Churches. I suggest Obama give speeches with their porticoes as backdrops. The Madeleine in Paris or St. Peter’s Church in Manhattan are appropriate sites that would allow him to be photographed to good advantage with no unsightly crucifixes and with plenty of monumental columns.
OK – probably much ado about nothing – at least as to people’s motivations, but it does make one think.
For example, if what was being covered up was a Star of David, or the Shahada, or maybe a crucifix, I am betting that the Obama organizers would have thought it through. To me it is more an indication of a tin ear than a nefarious intention.
is this an overreaction being exploited for partisan reasons? Does anyone remember John Ashcroft and topless Justice? Just as silly, and that got far more serious coverage than this. So I’m not exactly impressed by the left’s righteous indignation over the other side taking advantage of an opening.
Cathleen Kaveny,
Before your post flies over the internet and creates yet another firestorm. Very little of the Exorcist was filmed on the Georgetown campus. Most of the interior shots were done in New York. No filming was done at all inside Dahlgren Chapel. An abandoned church in Maryland was used for those scenes.
But Patrick, that “main point” is not worth taking seriously, for several reasons. Fr. Schall is basically doing what Bill Donohue did, at greater length — further obscuring the situation, and cheaply inflating the outrage, by presenting a bunch of hypotheticals. And they’re unconvincing hypotheticals, because the short answer is: yes, unless the situation is entirely different. In other words, if he’s speaking at Planned Parenthood in support of abortion rights, then I would expect their logo to be prominently displayed, since the venue would be the message. If he’s speaking about the economic crisis in an auditorium that happens to be on Planned Parenthood property, then, yes, the “neutral background” policy would apply. It’s not a new or controversial policy, and pretending it is strikes me as disingenuous in the extreme. Almost as disingenuous as pretending there’s something objectionable about “columns.”
Sean: there is a difference between “taking advantage of an opening” and “completely fabricating a reason to attack.”
Ms. O’Reilly,
You are absolutely correct about the difference in taking advantage and fabricating a lie, which is exactly what the blogger who started this whole thing off did. Instead of picking up the phone and calling the university for an explanation, this person painted a completely false scenario and then proceeded to inflate the outrage by pushing all the usual buttons. A self-described good and faithful Catholic who forgot that calumny is a serious sin. A following post boasted of being on the White House’s “faith” list and took the press clearance received as a sign that the White House takes bloggers seriously. I suspect the White House will not make that mistake again.
Oops. . . . very, very sorry, Alan. . . I wasn’t trying to create another firestorm. It was just stream of consciousness . . . stairs. .. . to creepiness. . . .
But creepiness isn’t necessarily doctrinally unwarranted.
It’s also the case, unlike the premises of the Da Vinci Code, the Church does believe that demonic possession is a real possibility. I believe the film was based on a St. Louis case.
“What interests me here is this: If this president speaks at a Jewish Synagogue, or a Baptist church, or the Crystal Cathedral, or the Muslim Mosque on Massachusetts Avenue, the Ravens Stadium, the George Washington University, the headquarters of Planned Parenthood, or the hall of the local Atheist Society, will the same policy be followed?”
Patrick,
It doesn’t seem to me it is a matter of “policy.” It seems rather a matter of setting up backdrops for televised presidential addresses. Do you really imagine that Obama has a “policy” that all Christian symbols must be covered up wherever he goes? Do you really think Obama himself came into Gaston Hall and said, “Cover that IHS up”?
I am quite sure if Obama had spoken in some symbol-filled location at Georgetown without a backdrop, he would now be being criticized for exploiting religious symbols. There are a lot of people who hate him, and he’s going to be criticized no matter what he does.
This an issue similar to whether or not Omama was wearing an American-flag lapel pin, excepts it’s a lot uglier, because we have Christians using their own religion as a tool for demagoguery.
So I’m not exactly impressed by the left’s righteous indignation over the other side taking advantage of an opening.
Sean,
There’s “taking advantage of an opening,” and then there’s twisting things beyond all reason, like Rush Limbaugh’s remarks about the rescue of the ship’s captain held by Somali pirates:
That kind of thing is just vile.
David N.: I am no expert, but to the best of my knowledge, we have not been told that Mr. Limbaugh is now a leader of the Catholic “Religious Right”. Is he even Catholic?
This is off topic, but you posted about it at length, so please tell me you are not going to defend the murder of those civilians. Please. I understand you have an enormous personal affection and devotion to the Commander in Chief, but please do not say that executing people who have been convicted of no crime, and who, according to Boumediene v. Bush – as vigorously reaffirmed by this very Commander in Chief – must receive Constitutional protections as alien, uniformed enemy combatants is not every bit as morally reprehensible, indefensible, and intrinsically evil as stress positions and sleep deprivation.
David
I am no fan of Limbaugh but even I can tell when he is being facetious. Besides – what the heck does that have to do with this?
I kind of wonder what the expression “common ground” is even supposed to mean in the Church.
Is it the overlapping space in a Wenn diagram?
Is it the town square, owned in common?
Is it the deep background shared by members of the same family who might not agree on much but they know they’ve got each other?
Tony Woodlief has a good response:
http://tonywoodlief.com/?p=1565
Photos are helpful:
http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2006/12/images/20061204-5_p120406sc-0454jpg-515h.html
That is helpful, “Nomilk.” Captions are helpful too: “Mrs. Laura Bush delivers remarks Monday, December 4, 2006, during a program at Georgetown University in Washington, DC, to announce the partnership of the U.S.-Afghan Women’s Council with Georgetown University.” That last part probably explains — as I noted above — why the banners behind her say “Georgetown” so prominently. Because it’s a speech about Georgetown. Also, were these remarks broadcast nationwide on television? Based on the fact that the backdrop is obviously designed to be seen by those in the room — and not by a TV camera — I’m guessing no.
There’s a long history of the common ground initiative at the National Pastoral life Center including articles on the history in Church magazine and the Common ground lectures are available on line. Those who want to have a simple idea of Church that they can then set out to pick away at need to study the history of that movement and the continued tension between those who think Bernandin ‘s view of the problem, exacerbated now, was right.
When I read some of the snarky quotes about it here, I think of the old funny map of New York where the City is about 95% of the US and the the other 5% is the rest of the US.
So it is with those on the right here who can only see their own bubble and the rest are liberal – there’s no such thing as a center,
That’s why i think in this toxic environment, common ground in the Church is impossible and, more and more, I beleive Fr. Kavangh is right that we’re becoming the Church of Christians who hate each other.
I did want to ask Jim (and he may be right) what are the divisive projects on the left?
Take VOTF, for example, Is it centrist or left? And in trying to be centrist is that divisive?
Finally, it would be nice to have (as has been pointed out on this matter ) intellectuial honesty in raising issues.
I am no fan of Limbaugh but even I can tell when he is being facetious. Besides – what the heck does that have to do with this? – Sean
This is off topic, but you posted about it at length, so please tell me you are not going to defend the murder of those civilians. – MAT
I would say both the incidents (Obama can’t abide Christian symbols, and Obama orders the murder of black teens) are cases of Obama Derangement Syndrome. (Read the linked article. It’s very sensible.) Any act or incident involving Obama may be twisted and distorted by the right to make the most unfounded and outrageous accusations.
Now, unless MAT is pulling our leg, he must feel that Limbaugh either wasn’t being facetious or that if he was being facetious, he nevertheless had a good argument.
It is an utter distortion to describe the shooting of the Somali pirates as “the murder of those civilians.” Obama’s orders to the Navy SEALs were to resolve the hostage crisis peacefully if possible. According to news accounts, the SEALs passed up a number of opportunities to “take out” the three pirates holding the American captain hostage. It was only when they felt his life was in danger that they fired. If it’s murder to shoot pirates who are holding a hostage and are possibly about to kill him, it’s by some definition of murder that I have never heard before and that apparently is applicable only when Barack Obama is involved.
Hello All,
I thought I was not going to visit this thread again but I thought it would be of group interest to know that earlier this morning Fox News repeated on the air the claim that President Obama had requested that the religious symbol in the room used for his Georgetown speech be covered up. Now ordinarily I do not watch news on television. (I was in a customer lobby this morning when I saw this.) But it appears Fox News is not giving an accurate account of what happened at Georgetown even several days after the fact.
Fox News repeated on the air the claim that President Obama had requested . . . .
In the light of information like this
It is interesting that in reading comments by the perpetually outraged, it is not “the White House staff” or “the White House” that requested covering IHS. It is President Obama himself, who apparently in their eyes, supervises the setting up of the backdrops for his speeches.
If someone wanted to question the practice of dragging your own backdrop around with you so that wherever you speak, people watching on television can’t tell where you are, I would say it’s a good point. And if someone asked why nine American flags are better than one, I’d say they were asking a good question about how symbols convey meaning. But to maintain that Obama is anti-Christian and must have all Christian symbols covered anywhere he appears is just malicious nonsense.
David,
Regarding the Limbaugh quote you introduced above (“That kind of thing is just vile,” in your judgment), I believe you are misinterpreting as a straightforward vile diatribe what is satire, a burlesque, i.e., a Colbert-like parody, the genre seemingly much appreciated on this site. You can consider Limbaugh as vile for other reasons but hardly because he believes the lines you quoted.
A similar example of irony from that devil William Kristol on Fox News (I hope it’s not necessary to caution you to not take this literally as a serious reflection of Kristol’s thought):
BAIER: Bill, I have seen some in the mainstream media portray President Obama’s decision to authorize the captain of the Bainbridge to use lethal force as somehow his first successful test of foreign policy. What’s your take on that?
BILL KRISTOL, EDITOR, “THE WEEKLY STANDARD”: I’m shocked by Mort and Charles. Haven’t you guys learned that force doesn’t solve anything, that militarism is a huge problem of U.S. foreign policy, unilateral preemptive action?
(LAUGHTER)
We don’t know they were going to shoot Captain Phillip, you know. And there were these trigger happy guys authorized by the U.S. government, just killed them without due process. Where were their — they didn’t get read their rights first. It was really — we have learned no lessons, obviously, from the Bush years.
And what about the moderate parts of the pirate community?
(LAUGHTER)
How are they going to react to this? What about the pirates street?
BAIER: We have learned —
KRISTOL: The pirate street will be up in arms!
BAIER: We have learned about the Kristol sarcasm factor.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,515646,00.html
Patrick,
Find the humor or satire in the second paragraph I quote in which Limbaugh says “I don’t know if it’s true or not, but apparently” the black Muslim “kids” were upset and wanted to give the captain back and go home because they were running out of food and fuel. “That’s the story, but then when one of them put a gun to the back of the captain, Mr. Phillips, then bam, bam, bam. There you have it, and three teenagers shot on the high seas at the order of President Obama.”
Is that really satire? If it is, it’s very inept satire. It’s in essence saying there was no real hostage situation, because the “kids” wanted to return the hostage and go home, but they were shot anyway.
Even if Limbaugh himself thinks he’s being “satirical,” there are an awful lot his listeners who take what he says seriously.
Would you care to offer an opinion if MAT in his post of April 17th, 2009 at 4:35 pm, was pulling our legs, or was he seriously arguing that the pirates were “murdered.” Perhaps MAT can tell us himself.
David N.: You are talking about the legal statutes of murder – I was not using the legal definition of “murder” so if you inferred in what I said an accusation of what is known as “felony murder”, that was not my intent. Please take this as a formal amendment to my comments to substitute the word “homicide” for the word “murder” so that there is no confusion.
David,
If you don’t mind I will refrain from opining about MAT’s intent. We’ve gone astray as it is. The only reason I responded to your Limbaugh comment was that your accusation of “vileness” was entirely gratuitous, based on a misinterpretation. If you don’t want to take my word for it perhaps that of Ann Althouse will do. She’s about as independent as one can find in the blogosphere. Her post asks:” Is Rush Limbaugh really that hard to understand? Some perfectly intelligent folks just don’t see where the jokes are.”
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2009/04/is-rush-limbaugh-really-that-hard-to.html
It may be inept satire. But that is not uncommon. For example, I find Colbert to be generally insufferable. I suppose, to coin a phrase, de gustibus non est disputandum. But it’s quite another matter to label someone as vile based upon a misreading of satire.
I believe you’ve already charged Fr. Schall to be guilty of slander. I thought it worthwhile to enter a demurral regarding your latest charge. Thankfully you don’t seem eager to take Kristol literally.
Perhaps we can agree that the “perpetually outraged” stance you refer to above is one to be avoided whether it’s directed against spokesmen of the left or right.
Patrick,
Althouse says, “It doesn’t really matter whether the joke is funny. It’s just dumb not to perceive that it was supposed to be funny.”
Well, see David Frum on NewMajority.com, who quotes the same to paragraphs I do, preceded by this headline and comment:
Coding error. “Is he being dumb?” is my comment, not David Frum’s.
“But you do really need to see the screencaps that Media Matters has posted… Most especially the one with the headline “White House Denies Jesus Report: Believable?” (No. None of this is “believable.”) —-
I suspect that as more and more responsible print journalism disappears, this is the kind of stuff with which way too many people will “get their news.” I’m glad that I’m as old as I sm so that I don’t have too many more years to be subjecte to politically-motivated mindless pap.