Part 14 of my ongoing survey of the follies of many modern day Jesuits. Fordham President Joseph McShane, SJ, knows who his real enemy is. Today Fordham is hosting the well known proponent of euthanasia and abortion Peter Singer at a conference charmingly entitled: “Conference with Peter Singer: Christians and Other Animals: Moving the Conversation Forward.” Singer is fine according to McShane, but he bitterly criticized the College Republicans recently at Fordham for sponsoring a speech by Ann Coulter. Robert Shibley, at Professor William Jacobson’s magnicent blog College Insurrection, gives us the juicy details:
After loudly proclaiming his “disgust” with the “hate speech” of conservative pundit Ann Coulter in an email to all students, in the process slamming the Fordham College Republicans—his own students—as immature bigots who lack character, Fordham President Joseph McShane, S.J., is now faced with defending his administration’s invitation to philosopher and infanticide advocate Peter Singer to participate in a panel on “animal ethics.”
Father McShane could have allowed the marketplace of ideas to function on its campus without engaging in an electronic temper tantrum. (To his credit, he did not ban Coulter from campus, although the College Republicans clearly saw which way the wind was blowing and canceled the event themselves—here’s one student’s reaction to that.) But he didn’t, and now Fordham is stuck trying to justify McShane’s statement.
In response to an email from a College Insurrection reader provided to us, Bob Howe, Senior Director of Communications at Fordham, penned the following response, attempting to explain why having Peter Singer advocating his positions on campus is totally different from having Ann Coulter advocate her positions: Continue reading
I’ve never much cared for Ann Coulter, but her column today shreds whatever remaining credibility she had. Her attacks on Santorum in particular reek of anti-Catholicism. Thankfully Jay Anderson has fisked her so that I don’t have to (Jay’s comments in red).
… Santorum is not as conservative as his social-issues credentials suggest. He is more of a Catholic than a conservative [ED: Apparently, being "more of a Catholic" - i.e. taking one's faith seriously - is supposed to be a bad thing.], which means he’s good on 60 percent of the issues[ED.: Got that? Being Catholic automatically means being "wrong"on 40% of the issues in the mind of Coulter. At least she's honest about her bigotry.], but bad on others, such as big government social programs. He’d be Ted Kennedy if he didn’t believe in God. [ED.: Yeah, that Santorum is JUST LIKE Ted Kennedy. Wait. What could the conservative Santorum POSSIBLY have in common with the uber-liberal late Ted Kennedy? Oh yeah. That whole Catholicism thingy - being beholden to the Pope, or something like that. Any doubts about how Coulter feels about Catholics now?]
Santorum may not be a big spender as far as professional politicians go [ED.: Or, for that matter, as far as your big-government, health-care mandating RINO boy, Dullard Flip Rino, goes.], but he is still a professional politician. In 2005, one of his former aides described him as “a Catholic missionary who happens to be in the Senate.” [ED.: I, for one, think the Senate could use a few more such statesmen who are committed to renewing our culture, promoting virtue and traditional family values, and prizing service to others in the common good. Apparently, these things have no place in the selfishly individualistic, objectivist AynRandland that Coulter envisions for our society.]
The Catholic missionary was fantastic on issues like partial-birth abortion, but more like a Catholic bishop [ED.: Ah, there we go. What anti-Catholic screed would be complete without a few shots at the hierarchy in the form of Bishop-bashing?] in his support for No Child Left Behind, the Medicare drug entitlement program (now costing taxpayers more than $60 billion a year), and a highway bill with a Christmas tree of earmarks, including the famous “bridge to nowhere.” [ED.: I was unaware that the Bishops had taken a formal position in support of any of these measures. Not sure they've really taken much of an interest in Alaska road projects, for example. But why let that get in the way of slapping the Bishops around?]
More at the link.
If I may add, her attacks on Rick Perry are just as poorly thought out.
Rick Perry is not electable as president for three reasons: First, he seems too much like Bush;
Only to dimwitted individuals who can’t look past the fact that he’s from Texas and speaks with a midwest Texas twang.
second, he gave illegal immigrants in-state tuition;
Really? I mean really? This is supposed to be a disqualifying position? Also, he didn’t just give them in-state tuition discounts – the communist bastion known as the Texas legislature, by an overwhelming majority, did. Meanwhile, Coulter supports the guy who gave Barack Obama the model for his health care overhaul.
But yeah, Perry signing the in-state tuition discount for illegals is completely disqualifying.
and, third, uh, oops … I can’t remember the third reason.
Oh! Oh! Get it? It’s because Perry had that brain freeze at the debate. That’s a completely original joke from Ann Coulter that hasn’t been made a couple of hundred times already by people with far more wit.
Ten years ago National Review gave Coulter the boot for her post-9/11 column. With such slipshod reasoning as displayed here, I think they’d be ready to welcome her back with open arms.
Right you are Klavan on the Culture! Conservative talk show personalities do owe a great debt to one group which has contributed more to their success that any other group: Liberals. Many liberals, through their over the top hatred of dissenting views, helped give vast publicity to the figures they hated and thus helped launch their careers and continue to give them endless publicity. So a round of applause for intolerant liberals! Continue reading
[Update: thanks to Michael Sean Winters for increasing my hit count today. Apparently this post makes me a "yahoo." I couldn't care less. He complains that it isn't what she said, but where she said it - on MTV. So remember that folks: when the secular media challenges you and asks you about Christian views on sexuality, turn coward and hide behind deference to parents instead of clearly stating what Christ taught. And please forget about Matthew 10:32-33 while you're at it. God understands how important is not to talk about embarrassing topics and to not be a "yahoo."]
Of all the stupid memes the media has tried to feed me about Christine O’Donnell in the last 24 hours, I finally came across one I found blog-worthy: Christine O’Donnell opposes masturbation. Of course in the eyes of the same media, this is bizarre, “kooky” behavior that can be used against the candidate in the general election. The geniuses at Yahoo News, for instance, write,
“O’Donnell, a perennial candidate who once argued against masturbation on a MTV special, is not likely to move toward the middle…”
Because nothing could be more partisan, right? This video clip was dug up by Rachel Maddow, as part of a 1996 MTV special in which O’Donnell appears with a number of other Christian youth leaders offering some pretty basic Christian arguments against masturbation. The TMP article linked in the quote quips that she “considers looking at pornography akin to adultery.”
Correction, TMP. It is Jesus Christ who considers lust in one’s heart a form of adultery, a teaching to which O’Donnell, myself, and every other Christian ought to simply be faithful.
Of course it doesn’t surprise me that our basic teachings on sexuality are mocked and despised by the MSM, and especially by the likes of Maddow and North Korean TV (h/t Ann Coulter for that apt nickname for MSNBC). The countless stories of families and marriages ruined by sexual addiction are not enough for people who are determined at almost any cost to assure us of the safety and normalcy of wanton, ceaseless, selfish sexual gratification. They seem to believe only some kind of weirdo could possibly be opposed to this behavior; I say only someone who is utterly blind to their own soul could possibly be in favor of it.
And no, morons, she is not calling for the outlawing of masturbation, as if such a thing were even possible. The stupidity of those who cannot imagine arguing that something is wrong without calling for it to be outlawed never ceases to amaze me.
Kudos to O’Donnell for speaking out on this topic, if she still holds these views. It shouldn’t diminish her standing as a candidate one bit, and ought to raise it in the eyes of Christians, though what should or shouldn’t happen, and what will happen are of course two very different things.
Rank and File Conservatives & The Conservative Intelligentsia United In Outrage Over Mosque Near Ground Zero, Not So With Same-Sex Marriage
The proposed mosque set to be built near Ground Zero, site of the September 11, 2001 attacks has brought a sweeping condemnation from both rank and file conservatives and the Conservative Intelligentsia. Now that President Barack Obama has weighed in the matter, seemingly supporting the effort, one can only imagine how this will be used in the fall elections. However, a rift has appeared to have been opened concerning the views of the rank and file conservatives and the Conservative Intelligentsia following the ruling of Judge Vaughn Walker over same-sex marriage. Many of the conservative intelligentsia, along with the establishment wing of the Republican Party has either been silent or voiced the view that the wished the whole gay marriage issue would simply go away. This has led to bewilderment from some conservative voices.
The best Catholic tie in with the efforts to build a mosque on Ground Zero came from the famed conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer, who is Jewish. In his opposition to the mosque being built near Ground Zero, he correctly pointed out that Pope John Paul II ordered Carmelite nuns, who were living right next to Auschwitz, to move closer to a nearby town, since the site had become a rallying point for Jewish identity. Krauthammer correctly pointed out that Christians had been murdered there too and the nuns were doing the heroic deed of praying for the souls of those who were viciously murdered. However, Krauthammer pointed out that the late Polish pontiff felt that it created the wrong perception.
“Conservatism–as a philosophical, cultural, and political project–does in fact have boundaries, and those have been set by the cluster of ideas offered by such giants as Burke, Lincoln, Chesterton, Lewis, Hayek, Chambers, Friedman, Kirk, Weaver, Gilder, Buckley, and Reagan. There are, of course, disagreements among these thinkers and their followers, but there is an identifiable stream of thought. It informs our understanding of human nature, families, civil society, just government, and markets.
“What contemporary conservatism has lost–especially in its Hannitized and Coulterized manifestations of superficial ranting–is the connection to a paternity that is necessary so that its intellectual DNA may be passed on to its progeny.