The XXXXXXXX League
As you know, Bill Donohue tirelessly beats back anti-Catholicism wherever it may rear its ugly head. Look at his latest press release:
If the same standard that was applied to President George W. Bush were to be applied to Senator Barack Obama, then Obama must be considered a theocrat who shows no respect for separation of church and state. What else is one to conclude after seeing a color photo of him today on the front page of the New York Times preaching from the pulpit of a Christian church?
What’s that you say? President Bush isn’t Catholic and neither is Obama and neither was the church in which Obama spoke? Well, if you want to split hairs…
Obama’s spiritual mentor is a radical minister who blames the U.S. for the war in Iraq. So controversial is Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. that Obama shunned him when he announced his bid for the presidency. It makes one wonder how the media will follow up on this: after all, when Mel Gibson was being criticized for making ‘The Passion of the Christ,’ his foes constantly demanded that he denounce his father’s views on the Holocaust.
Come again? Rev. Wright isn’t Catholic either and Mel Gibson apparently rejects Vatican II? Quibble if you must…
Obama can begin his presidential campaign with ‘Giving all praise and honor to God,’ and it doesn’t raise an eyebrow among the guardians of church and state. But when Bush said that Jesus was his favorite philosopher, the guardians went ballistic.
Are “the guardians” Catholic? Maybe? No? Fine, then. What about this:
Yesterday, Obama blasted the Bush administration’s handling on the war in Iraq while preaching at a Christian church. Now imagine a pro-life Republican candidate speaking at a Catholic Church denouncing the Democrats for supporting partial-birth abortions. And imagine the reaction he would receive if there were a color photo of him on the front page of the New York Times speaking at St. Patrick’s Cathedral. The double standard is nauseous, and it smacks of religious and racial prejudice.
There it is. Imagine that scenario, and bingo, you have your anti-Catholic double-standard. Isn’t it obvious? If a prolife Republican attacked prochoice Democrats from the pulpit of a Catholic church, the Times would surely run a black-and-white photo. Animals.
Grant,
I appreciate the general disdain you have for Mr. Donahue, and this isn’t the most artfully drafted news release (I don’t get the racial prejudice angle), but are you saying that there is NO double standard as far as the media are concerned or just that Donahue ought to point it out only if Catholics are involved?
Just yesterday I saw a prominent Methodist minister and immigration rights activist being interviewed by a conservative commentator about his work and the work of other clergy, including Catholics, on this issue. Even though the man was sitting there in his clericals, not once did the interviewer ask – aren’t you imposing your religious views on the rest of us, or what about separation of church and state. Neither, I suspect (heck I guarantee) would a liberal commentator. But if a Catholic Bishop is being interviewed about stem cell research or same sex marriage, these objections are almost always first out of the gate. We are all supposed to quake in fear about the rising theocracy of the right, but when liberal politicians give explicitly political speeches in Black churches and use their congregations as a power base – no problem. The point is that it is not “religion” in any neutral sense that the press targets, but conservative Protestants and traditional Catholics.
I think that all people of faith should oppose the idea that political positions or actions lack validity simply because they are based in one’s faith – whether they agree with them or not. In particular, if I were a liberal this would bother me for two reasons. The first is that the principal is the same whether you are on the right or the left. Some of the same arguments made against religious people who oppose abortion, for example, were made against abolitionists 150 years ago – i.e. that they are seeking to impose a peculiarly stringent strain of religious fanaticism on society. Some day, the shoe could be on the other foot.
The second, and more immediate, reason is that the press’s double standard ought to be insulting to liberal people of faith. Maybe I am overstating this, but I think a lot of the reason that the media (which are according to most research overwhelmingly irreligious) don’t spend much ink on the religious beliefs of religious liberals, is that they either A) don’t believe they mean it, or B) don’t think it is very important.
Nice catch. I haven’t followede Donohue for a while. It’s too exhausting (and depressing!). But here is my piece on Donohue’s utter partisanship: http://reasons-and-opinions.blogspot.com/2007/02/time-to-revisit-donohues-partisanship.html.
Some choice quotes from Donohue: “most Americans appreciate and admire President George W. Bush for his strong religious convictions.” “is [Kerry] playing politics with his religion?”
Is there really a double standard?
A minister giving individual witness is far different than a pronouncement from a Bishop, who has ecclesiastical authority, So much so, that Fr Neuhaus (First Things) has said:
“When it is not necessary for the bishops to speak on a particular subject, it is necessary that they not speak on that subject.”
The Mouth That Bores seems to have forgotten this time-honored wisdom:
Omnia videre, multa dissumulare, pauca corriegere = See all, keep a lot to yourself and correct a few things. Motto of Pope Gregory the Great.
Notice everything. Overlook much. Improve a little. John XXIII
I think he meant to say that the double standard is “nauseating”. The image of a nauseous standard, single or double, is too much.