Donohue Continues to Beclown Himself

Friday, January 9, AD 2015

I especially enjoyed his attempted analogy of this situation with a woman who is beaten for twenty years and then blows her husband’s brain out.  Any of you who have ever contributed a dime to Donohue’s worthless organization should demand every cent back.  Discrimination against Catholics and general anti-Catholic bigotry are serious issues and Donohue, in exchange for a burst of publicity, has made certain that no one is ever going to take him seriously again.  Time for Donohue to find another means to earn his daily bread.

Continue reading...

87 Responses to Donohue Continues to Beclown Himself

  • I would not care to read this magazine, but Donahue is way off base here. Islam demands the death of anyone who dares criticize it. The attack on Charlie Hebdo was not just an attack on that magazine, it’s an attempt to intimidate the rest of us into frightened sheep. Hebdo was chosen because of it’s prominence, but an outspoken person or institution that was also down on Islam could have been chosen as the target for tonight as well. Donahue is incredibly short sighted not to realize that.

  • . A woman abused for 20 years is in a addictive prison of sorts hence she has overstayed and not fled. The murderers in question had to hunt for this small newspaper in order to find abuse that didn’t exist in their lives …so that they could kill so that they could be martyred which is what they are asking of the swat team over night in France. They seek 72 “dark eyed houri”…they are fundy not sufis who take the houri metaphorically…. but the world and Donohue gives them more credit than that…ie that they are seeking Allah like sufis and are thus really offended. No…they are fundamentalists….you can’t seek God and 72 houri simultaneously. Fundamentalist Islam is a blasphemous concept of heaven for the males of Islam. It is carnality to the nth degree replacing the encounter with God. They hunted for the abuse so that it would lead them to a carnal paradise. I’ve never looked at one odd newspaper in my life and I once worked in Manhattan with its many news stands. They hunted in order to be offended….so that they could be killed by police so that they finally be rich and carnal in paradise. It has zero to do with reaching the real God.

  • Anyone of you who have ever contributed a dime to Donohue’s worthless organization should demand every cent back.

    The organization antedated Dr. Donohue. They put out a satisfactory newsletter and some useful research reports. He’s just making a bad argument here. (And his conception of ‘anti-Catholicism’ is somewhat muddled). A better argument would be that vulgarians, like the rest of us, should get to die in bed.

    The ‘free speech’ argument is problematic for reasons stated by Robert Bork a generation ago: the utility of free speech is something which derives from a public order characterized by deliberative processes, which is not the object of nude dancing at the Kitty Kat Lounge (or displays of arrested development or sexual perversion). In a healthy culture, there would not be much supply or demand for a publication like Charlie Hebdo, and what their would be would be constrained in its distribution by citations issued to news vendors by inspectors enforcing municipal ordinances against the trade in obscene literature, and so confined to adult book stores and mail delivery in plain brown wrappers. (Of course that refers to an older generation of technology).

  • Art Deco

    Charlie Hebdo is (was) for the most part a satirical magazine that, over the last 40 years has uncovered quite a number of real scandals. Its targets have been, for the most part, politicians, judges, bankers, financiers and civil servants. It is bawdy and scatalogical, rather than obscene.

    It was one of the few publications in France that was prepared tp publish the Danish cartoonsof the “Prophet” and, in response to the reaction, started producing its own. It decried the hypocrasy of the rest of the Left-Wing press that gleefully produced rather dated anti-clerical attacks on what CH called a “moribund superstition,” whilst refusing to say a word against Islam, for fear of offending murderers for that is precisely what the rest of the press were afraid of.

    CH knew the risks but, as Stephane Carbonnier said, “It perhaps sounds a bit pompous, but I’d rather die standing than live on my knees.”

  • Sorry, misprint – I meant Stephane Charbonnier. The quotation is from an interview with La Monde in 2012, « Ça fait sûrement un peu pompeux, mais je préfère mourir debout que vivre à genoux. »

  • . All male suspects are dead…mixed reports on hostages as to safety.

  • I especially enjoyed his attempted analogy of this situation with a woman who is beaten for twenty years and then blows her husband’s brain out.
    I understood the analogy. It’s proper to focus on the crime of murder and carry it to its legal end, but don’t forget to discuss the issue of domestic violence.
    .
    I think the confusion or divide between Megyn, Donald, et al is one side is arguing from legal ground and Donohue is arguing from moral ground. They take Donohue’s moral arguments, which are in agreement with many examination of conscience lists I’ve read, and extending them to legal conclusions, which is the wrong thing to do.
    .
    The attack on Charlie Hebdo was not just an attack on that magazine, it’s an attempt to intimidate the rest of us into frightened sheep.
    I didn’t hear anything to lead me to believe Donohue believes otherwise. He did call them “murders” and “Muslim barbarians.” He has spoken before about Islam influenced terrorism, but he is taking advantage of a window of opportunity to discuss hostility towards religion.
    .
    The murderers in question had to hunt for this small newspaper in order to find abuse that didn’t exist in their lives.
    If you narrow in on this single event, you’re missing the big picture Donohue is explaining, the hostility between religion and religion foes, which often appear in media.
    .
    In a healthy culture, there would not be much supply or demand for a publication like Charlie Hebdo, and what their would be would be constrained in its distribution by citations issued to news vendors by inspectors enforcing municipal ordinances against the trade in obscene literature, and so confined to adult book stores and mail delivery in plain brown wrappers.
    From what I hear, this is what Donohue wants to discuss, what makes a healthy culture. For this issue, he offers a remedy of “self censorship.” Bork goes a little further than what Donohue is saying, but it makes sense. Donohue is right in saying freedom of speech is not the end, but the means. For if it was the end, then anything goes.

  • I generally agree with Art and Kyle.
    That said, Don is right that Donohue’s analagy is offensive. The relationship between a 20-year episode of abuse and the murder of the abuser by his victim is not comparable to the relationship between that of a gratuitously nasty and mean-spirited critic and the murder of the critic by his target. The former relationship involves a sensible and fair inquiry into the question of excuse or mitigation; the latter does not.

  • “Any one of you who have ever contributed a dime to Donohue’s worthless
    organization should demand every cent back.”

    According to Charity Navigator, for the fiscal year ending in 2012, Mr. Donohue’s
    compensation was $407,000. That’s a lot of dimes.

  • Clinton,
    I think that’s 7 or 8 dollars more than Obama but Obama has bodyguards …albeit somewhat laid back ones.

  • Any one of you who have ever contributed a dime to Donohue’s worthless organization should demand every cent back.

    On Donohue, from Ace:

    There is a kind of stupidity that does not exist naturally in the wild, which does not arise spontaneously in men’s brains, but which springs up only when people’s income levels depend on such stupidity.

    You see this sort of stupidity all over official Advocacy DC, especially at, say, ThinkProgress and Media Matters.

    Those people aren’t smart, but they’re not as stupid as they sound.
    They are saying those stupid things because they’re being paid to say them.

    Period.

    As for Donohue’s claim being a legal, not a moral one, well, I think Allahpundit is correct:

    Hewitt asks the correct question in response: What do you do when people defy that norm? How far are you willing to go to enforce it? Donohue’s against criminalizing the practice, he claims, but is that because he genuinely opposes penalties or because he suspects people won’t hear him out if he takes too harsh of an approach to blasphemy at this point in the public debate? His logic is conspicuously similar to the collectivist logic used by fans of “hate speech” laws, including his creepy reference to “abuse of freedom”: We should protect free speech up to the point that it’s not hurting society, at which point it’s time to start carving out exceptions. It’s the “heckler’s veto” as social ideal. Provocative speech, which is hurtful to some slice of the public almost by definition, would have a tough time surviving in that moral ecosystem. In fact, years before jihadis decided to escalate the sanction, Charlie Hebdo was sued in French courts on grounds of “racism” for publishing the Danish Mohammed cartoons. They did survive, but as the entire world now knows, Charlie Hebdo was unusually dogged in its willingness to take risks for satire. Hewitt’s rightly suspicious here that Donohue’s system of “moral” sanction for blasphemy would calcify into a system of legal sanction. And you know what? Given the polling, he’s right to be.

  • I would also note that Donohue’s smug little dig at the end about other outlets not publishing the offending images is rather rich considering he was appearing on one of the media outlets that has been willing to and has shown the offending images. Perhaps he could have learned that fact from one of the imaginary Bishops he talked to (listen to the Hugh Hewitt clip in that Ace link to understand what I mean).

  • As someone I know put it very well:

    “Sure, people can talk about whatever they want, but it’s just not true that time and place are irrelevant considerations. It’s a commonplace nowadays to dismiss people who want to “tell me what I ought to be talking about,” but people’s priorities really are often indicative of something important about their moral formation. In Donohue’s case, it’s that he is a fanatic according to Churchill’s definition–that is, he can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject, which for him is whether somebody’s religion should be insulted. “

  • As for Donohue’s claim being a legal, not a moral one,
    Other way around.
    .
    Donohue’s against criminalizing the practice, he claims, but is that because he genuinely opposes penalties or because he suspects people won’t hear him out if he takes too harsh of an approach to blasphemy at this point in the public debate?
    I think Donohue wants heads cut off or public stonings. Why not assume the worst? It’s Donohue afterall!
    .
    His logic is conspicuously similar to the collectivist logic used by fans of “hate speech” laws
    Yes, because “self” censorship is completely the same as legislated speech and prosecution. What’s that quote about smart people saying stupid things?
    .
    We should protect free speech up to the point that it’s not hurting society
    Wait… so Allahpundit IS for legislating free speech. That’s further than what Donohue says about the Charlie Hebdo situation. Of course, assumptions always trump facts.
    .
    “Hurting”… rather subjective. I think the legalists, e.g. Allahpundit, and the moralists will have different but overlapping definitions of what hurts.
    .
    Hewitt’s rightly suspicious here that Donohue’s system of “moral” sanction for blasphemy would calcify into a system of legal sanction.
    It’s not IF there is legal sanction. It’s WHAT is legally sanctioned. Legal sanctions are already here. We’re just debating what is sanction and how it’s administered.
    .
    Given the polling, he’s right to be.
    Oh. Well, the polls have spoken. Nothing more to be said I guess. Polls now have authority to insert words into people’s mouths.
    .
    I would also note that Donohue’s smug little dig at the end about other outlets not publishing the offending images is rather rich considering he was appearing on one of the media outlets that has been willing to and has shown the offending images.
    Two points:
    1) A challenge to someone claiming all speech is equal to demonstrate their beliefs is not smugness.
    2) He gave no approval of showing the images. He is on the show to express the opposite. Will Fox anchors represent his opinion if he does not appear?

  • Lots of snark Kyle, but not a single rebuttal. Cheers.

  • Rebuttal can come packaged in different ways. Labeling arguments as snark is no refutation. Addressing the points presented would be a good start.

  • I’m afraid I don’t understand the clip. Were they debating the meaning of the First Amendment with regard to France? As for Donohue and his group, I’ve always stayed clear of him. I didn’t know the word “troll” when I first ran across him, but he always seems to be feeding the trolls and not doing much else.

  • I’ve always thought of Donahue as a bit of a loon, this only confirms that.

  • As for Donohue and his group, I’ve always stayed clear of him.
    I think that is how people are seeing his message. They are judging the personality before they judge what he is saying.
    .
    I only see or hear of Donohue every once in a while. I know he has an aggressive style. I try to separate style or personality, the messenger, from what’s been said, the message. In this case, I don’t really see anything earth shattering shocking.

  • Kyle – It’s a lot easier to stomach aggressiveness when it’s effective. I’ve never gotten the impression that Donohue’s group has ever been successful. As for his message in this case, I don’t think any of the individual sentences are necessarily wrong, but it’s hard to imagine anything less effective, unless his intent was to boost secularism and Islamic fanaticism at the expense of Christianity.

  • Addressing the points presented would be a good start.

    You first.

  • bill bannon: “They hunted in order to be offended….so that they could be killed by police so that they finally be rich and carnal in paradise. It has zero to do with reaching the real God.”
    .
    These comments are starting to finally bring wisdom. The wisdom is this: That the First Amendment (and our purpose on earth) is to find God. Our Constitution, and especially the First Amendment, is to be our servant in finding God. The freedom to worship God, to speak to God, to write about God and to peaceably assemble for God and not be prohibited from the free exercise thereof.
    .
    It pained me to hear Megan Kelly deliver that Larry Flint decision since the court has abandoned the true reason for its being, to fulfill the Constitution. Larry Flint was shot and crippled. He wears the American Flag as a diaper. He attended court altogether naked except for his diaper, our American Flag. The American Flag is a symbol for our purity, white, courage, red, and truth, blue. The American Flag is our symbol in joint and common tenancy for all people for all time, “We, the people” now and our constitutional “posterity”…those future generations still to be conceived.. Larry Flint is a despicable traitor to every American citizen, stealing and defacing our Flag and contemptibly using our freedom to violate us. and we think that we are brave and smart for letting him. Larry Flint ought to have been escorted out of court until he read the Constitution and developed some respect for the rest of us, one at a time. and this goes for those imbeciles burning the American Flag…get a life.
    .
    And George Washington patted Larry Flint on the head and said, nice boy. Go rest in peace on Mount Suribachi.
    .
    So the Supreme Court called atheism a religion. Atheism is unconstitutional. Pornography is free speech. Ponography is a lie about human sexuality and perjury in a court of law. Babies are “blobs of tissue” without human souls with free will and intellect. Imposing atheism as a religion is unconstitutional. Inflicting ignorance, perjury and vice is unconscionable. Every aborted person has a lawsuit. Every raped person has a lawsuit and every citizen has a lawsuit against the Court for demeaning the human person and inviting crime.
    .
    Courageous? the Eiffel Tower? “Who am I to judge?” William Donohue “explains it all”
    and bill bannon you brought clarity to the conversation.

  • It’s a lot easier to stomach aggressiveness when it’s effective.
    Maybe. I don’t think he was aggressive in that video, especially when compared to what is usually on Fox News. He was quick paced because he knew the segment would not be long.
    .
    but it’s hard to imagine anything less effective, unless his intent was to boost secularism and Islamic fanaticism at the expense of Christianity.
    Saying we should show prudence or discretion when exercising the right of free speech so as to be more tolerant of one another, especially toward religions, won’t go down well with everyone.
    .
    PZ, You first. Done. Point by point… Father Z style. 🙂

  • Kyle Miller: “We should protect free speech up to the point that it’s not hurting society ”
    .
    The newly conceived, legally and morally innocent virgin, the sovereign person in the womb from the very first moment of conception (Oh, if we could only respect our innocence and virginity and maintain these virtues!) who is the standard for Justice and morality for the State, our constitutional posterity, does have a claim on the defense of virtue and decency. Pornography at eye level, viewed, has a negative impact on the individual, especially the mother carrying our posterity. (but we do not have to care about her or our posterity because we are the great society, the progressives, the illuminati, the enlightened ones.sarc.)on the funeral pyre more sarc.

  • I’ve never gotten the impression that Donohue’s group has ever been successful.

    As much as he’s beclowned himself with this episode, I have long struggled with whether his role is necessary or helpful, and despite what Ace, there may be some value in that guy who is willing to be aggressive and kind of straddle that line between being a strong defender of the faith, and well, a blowhard. Unfortunately it seems of late that he’s been too much the latter, and I’m not just referring to this incident.

  • It is bawdy and scatalogical, rather than obscene.

    So much for Scottish taste and sensibilities.

  • CH knew the risks but, as Stephane Carbonnier said, “It perhaps sounds a bit pompous, but I’d rather die standing than live on my knees.”

    While plagiarizing La Pasionaria to boot.

  • What do you do when people defy that norm? How far are you willing to go to enforce it? Donohue’s against criminalizing the practice, he claims, but is that because he genuinely opposes penalties or because he suspects people won’t hear him out if he takes too harsh of an approach to blasphemy at this point in the public debate?

    See Sandra Miesel’s explanation for the demise of the Index: the Holy See did not have the manpower to maintain it given the avalanche of published material issued each year. What you got was a fairly haphazard collection of items, and embarrassing for being haphazard. Technological innovation has effectively killed much that might have been done to create legal buttresses for the culture. To the extent that it has not, it has made the performance of such tasks a function of the central government, which is a cure worse than the disease. ‘Community standards’ should mean those of an actual physical place with people who interact face-to-face. The best you can do nowadays is statutes on indecent exposure, statutes on disorderly conduct, statutes on harassment, statutes on prostitution, statutes on public lewdness, and local ordinances which enjoin stage performances, cinema, and the commercial traffic in old technology and sexual implements. Because such ordinances are a legal buttress to a cultural expectation (that certain aspects of domestic life stay domestic), they are distinct from ‘hate speech’ laws, which apply to public speaking and published material on social relations which make use of terminology or arguments of which the arts-and-sciences faculty disapproves.

  • While we’re on the subject of free speech, it has been the contention of the sort of people who produce verbiage and images for a living that they should have plenary discretion to do so, a franchise which does not apply to ordinary commercial enterprises (who are regulated up the wazoo about their hiring practices, compensation, and the dimensions of their custom). Some of the liberty posturing is annoying.

  • “While plagiarizing La Pasionaria to boot.”

    François-Noël Gracchus Babeuf I think said it first, although I have no idea of the source of his statement. It is often erroneously attributed to Zapata who said something similar.

  • “Some of the liberty posturing is annoying.”

    I think Art that the solution would be more liberty not less.

  • It’s gotten to the point where Bill Donohue has become nearly as insufferable as Phil Donahue (the former talk show host). A debate/brawl between them would be almost as entertaining as pitting Dan Savage against Michael Savage… 🙂

  • “We should protect free speech up to the point that it’s not hurting society, at which point it’s time to start carving out exceptions.”
    Which is what we do, leading some jurists to argue that “freedom of speech” is not a substantive right, but an application of the principle nulla pœna sine lege – no punishment without a law.
    Obvious exceptions to the supposed right would include falsehood, fraud and wilful imposition, breach of a contractual or fiduciary duty of confidence, breach of the Official Secrets Act, infringement of copyright, injurious falsehood producing patrimonial loss, incitement or conspiracy to commit a crime, certain threats, publications likely to prejudice a fair trial that is pending and so on. It would be difficult to reduce them all to a single principle.

  • I think Art that the solution would be more liberty not less.
    And have more posturing? (Ex: narcotics legalization and marriage redefinition proponents.) And no liberty can be taken to excess of course because… liberty. I read your comment just before reading about the U.S. government possibly overthrowing the will of the people again for the sake of more liberty, the redefinition of marriage. Before that, I read about Justice Kagan’s struggle with the Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association where extremely violent video games cannot be regulated by the local & state governments because… free speech. Rape women for points! (The case helps solidify my opinion of Justice Thomas as the greatest legal mind and justice on the bench in decades.)
    .
    Liberty is a gift from God, a means to an end. It’s not a license for anything goes. Use responsibly.

  • Forgot to mention the state the U.S. government is attacking on marriage. It’s Texas of all places. The left is working hard to make it blue.
    http://www.texastribune.org/2015/01/09/appeals-judges-appear-skeptical-texas-gay-marriage

  • “Liberty is a gift from God, a means to an end.”

    Liberty is a gift from God, and it is a gift that is increasingly under attack from the State, I fear the State far more than I do purveyors of ideas that I disagree with or images that disgust or enrage me. If Donohue wasn’t such a publicity seeking idiot he might wonder where the prime threat to Catholicism comes from: private groups like those who published Charlie Hebold or Caesar. The right to not be offended is tailor made for would be tyrants, and they are taking firm advantage of it.

  • Liberty is a gift from God, and it is a gift that is increasingly under attack from the State
    This has been a popular story strengthened by baby boomers coming from the 60s, where “The Man” is around every corner. There is legitimate concern, but the concern is to the neglect of being wary of a government used to dissolve legitimate and reasonable traditions, standards and laws. Now we have people creating “rights” out of thin air, the will of people ignored and law makers and chief executives choosing what laws to enforce or defend in court. Why? Liberty.
    .
    At what point, if any, does liberty become an idol? At what point, if any, does the disagreeable become destructive?
    .
    If Donohue wasn’t such a publicity seeking idiot he might wonder where the prime threat to Catholicism comes from: private groups like those who published Charlie Hebold or Caesar. The right to not be offended…
    His organization has taken on both. For Donohue, this is larger than merely being offended.
    .
    What happens when those innocent private groups use their influence to manipulate Caesar or his courts against the people? No man is an island. No private group is an island. Nothing operates in a vacuum.

  • “This has been a popular story strengthened by baby boomers coming from the 60s, where “The Man” is around every corner.”
    Rubbish. It is the truth in that the State now reaches into areas of life in ways that tyrants of the past could only have dreamed of.
    “Now we have people creating “rights” out of thin air”
    Freedom of speech and of the press are not rights created out of “thin air”, but rather basic human freedoms with very long pedigrees.

    “chief executives choosing what laws to enforce or defend in court. Why? Liberty.”
    Hardly, but rather the desire of the people to have a benevolent Nanny looking over them, which leads to the election of people like Obama. Donohue’s alleged right not to be offended plays into this perfectly.

    “For Donohue, this is larger than merely being offended.”
    Yep. 400K per annum larger.

  • “Donohue’s against criminalizing the practice, he claims, but is that because he genuinely opposes penalties or because he suspects people won’t hear him out if he takes too harsh of an approach to blasphemy at this point in the public debate? I think Donohue wants heads cut off or public stonings. Why not assume the worst? It’s Donohue afterall!”
    .
    Thomas More said of blasphemy: “If he offends God, then let God arrest him” Separation of Church and state.
    .
    I corresponded with Father Virgil Blum, founder of The Catholic League for Civil and Religious Rights before Dr. Donohue. The Catholic League was formed on the same principle as the Jewish Anti-Defamation League, and takes the same approach. Somebody must stand up for Religious Freedom in America and Dr. Donohue does, not always palatable and not always successful, but then there is Corpus Christi, the play about Jesus sodomizing His Apostles and the multitude of disgusting things said about Catholicism that if left without challenge, you and I, as Catholics would be dead meat in the street. Did you know that the Know Nothings (rightfully named ) tried to drown Catholics?

  • Rubbish. It is the truth in that the State now reaches into areas of life in ways that tyrants of the past could only have dreamed of.
    Let me restate. The idea of a tyrannical government has been around for millennia and was reinforced during the 60s by “The Man.” As you apparently missed, it’s a legitimate concern. For many years, we have been focused on what the right hand is doing while ignoring the left hand, which is undermining the country by dissolving what works. This can’t be more clear than under the Obama administration. You can create a long list of fundamental transformations rationalized on liberty arguments. Before the knee jerks, this does not mean Obama is a big pro-liberty president. It means he’s undermining the nation under the guise of liberty. And if one buys into liberty being license to do anything, most of Obama’s decisions appear legit.
    .
    Freedom of speech and of the press are not rights created out of “thin air”, but rather basic human freedoms with very long pedigrees.
    Think big picture. This is about more than freedom of speech.
    .
    Hardly, but rather the desire of the people to have a benevolent Nanny looking over them, which leads to the election of people like Obama.
    I have often experienced the Protestant failing to understand Catholic teaching because they take Scripture and interpret it one way. Nothing wrong with their interpretation. But, they do not realize their interpretation and the Church’s can both be true. The truth of one does not refute the other.
    .
    Just because the people have elected a benevolent Nanny or a soft tyranny, as Mark Levin says, does not mean the tyrant can’t be used to undermine the social mores in order increase its power. One way to do this is by the dissolving I mentioned earlier.
    .
    Yep. 400K per annum larger.
    This Charlie Hebdo/Donohue affair shows why conservatives and the religious right lose battles in the culture war. We eat our own. Rather than focusing on the arguments, we focus on how someone sounds, looks and even how much they make. This is typically the behavior of the left, those who fail to substantively address what is being said and resort to personal attacks.
    .
    Donohue saw a window of opportunity and took it. He didn’t invent this. Social commentators and policy wonks have done this time and time again. He wants to examine the conditions which led to the unjustified killing. Oh, what a scandal!
    .
    Look how the left handles when there is a shooting. The talking heads begin talking about gun control. They open the conversation about what contributes to a shooting and push policy makers for changes. (Donohue did not go as far as calling for state action as some initially believed.) They’re usually wrong, but nonetheless talking without barely a critique about talking. Criticism about their arguments? Sure, but not talking. Does the left eat their own or let them advance the ball? Even if a Democrat disagrees, he’ll keep quiet unless it’s something really egregious. What’s so egregious about Donohue asking the equivalent of loving thy neighbor through self control? Oh, his paycheck. [eye roll]

  • (Ex: narcotics legalization and marriage redefinition proponents.)

    The advocates of homosexual pseudogamy are confused or pulling your leg if they fancy they;re advocating liberty. The issuance of a marriage license recognizes a status and confers obligations. They’re no more free to conduct parody wedding ceremonies than they were before. What they have a franchise to do is demand recognition from state agents and some private parties, which may be about their freedom to be an obnoxious nuisance, but there’s no benefit to anyone else. The mentality is the standard one for practitioners of identity politics.

  • If Donohue wasn’t such a publicity seeking idiot he might wonder where the prime threat to Catholicism comes from: private groups like those who published Charlie Hebold or Caesar.

    State agents are your problem only when they’re doing the bidding of a social nexus which wishes to abuse you. In this country, that’s not the sort who write for Charlie Hebdo, who tend in our time in place to be juvie libertarians. It’s also not police officers or DMV clerks. It’s the educational apparat, the social work apparat, and large slices of the legal profession and the press corps.

  • Hardly, but rather the desire of the people to have a benevolent Nanny looking over them, which leads to the election of people like Obama.

    I don’t think Social Security recipients have registered abnormal levels of support for the Democratic Party in recent years and BO’s level of support is most pronounced among sectors of the population defined by communal distinctions, marriage, and points in the life-cycle. Young people generally do not qualify for much in the way of public subventions bar the double-edged sword of student loans. There is TANF, of course, but the TANF clientele I believe amounts to 5 million people in toto (and I’d wager a three digit sum consists largely of non-voters).

  • “You term Religious Liberty a God-given right. So it is. Let me add. You need not thank anyone but God for it.”

    http://the-american-catholic.com/2012/04/22/religious-liberty-you-need-not-thank-anyone-but-god-for-it/

    The more things change….

  • Kyle Miller: “Before the knee jerks, this does not mean Obama is a big pro-liberty president. It means he’s undermining the nation under the guise of liberty. And if one buys into liberty being license to do anything, most of Obama’s decisions appear legit.”

    Here are some people who agree with you:
    Peter Kreeft Ph.D. (age 78) Professor of Philosophy at Boston College, Angels and Demons, The Existence of God, author of 78 books. Socrates meets Jesus. Peter Kreeft’s voice is like mother’s lullaby.
    Ryan Timothy Anderson MA, Ph.D. (age 31) Heritage Foundation, Witherspoon Institute, Public Discourse, (Elizabeth) Anscombe Society at Stanford University, author of What is Marriage with Robert P. George and Sherif Girgis of Princeton University.
    Ben Shapiro (age 30) Breitbart News, Truth Revolt, Young People of America, Radio host, Islam, author of Bullies, defender of the Second Amendment.
    Ben Shapiro has a lawsuit against Obama.
    The young people have figured out this Obama and refuse to be bullied.

  • Good Points All Around. Something not mentioned, the inability to understand the Islamic Jihadist mentality on the part of a secularized generation in the West. Albeit, the radical Islamic take on religion is nutty but the Obama types seem to have no idea. They are bereft of history and understanding. Obama himself seems blinded by an attachment to a Marxist worldview that should be buried in the very dust of the history he doesn’t understand.

  • Pinky- on “feeding the trolls”– my grandmother called it “instigating.”
    *******
    The problem with the “battered wife shooting her husband” thing is that it falsely models the situation. A closer setup would be that reservation kid in North Washington that shot several people, including his cousin and the girl he liked. Supposedly the girl he liked and his cousin did do some real jerk things– that does not justify, excuse, cause or do anything more than indicate what his reasoning might have been, ie, “I feel bad so I am going to KILL PEOPLE.”
    A more accurate version would be someone who goes to the “Coffee and Insults Cafe” every day for his coffee not liking the insults, coming back and shooting the folks who run it.
    Don’t like the insults? Don’t go there. I don’t care if you really like the coffee, if you can’t take the insults that come with it, leave, don’t kill people.

  • Obama himself seems blinded by an attachment to a Marxist worldview

    I doubt Obama knows Marxism from marmalade, or has any thoughts which would be unconventional outside a certain circle. Hold a series of cocktail parties and invite faculty and administrators from various schools around Chicago, apparatchiks of the Joyce Foundation and like organizations, psychotherapists, mainline protestant clergy, lawyers not engaged in common-and-garden solo and small partnership practice or working as public prosecutors, and journalists not working the sports page. You might leaven it with a scatter of school administrators or social workers. Listen to their table talk. That’s him.

  • Concerning – faculty, administrators, apparatchiks of the Joyce Foundation and the like, psychotherapists, mainline protestant clergy, lawyers of a certain ilk, most journalists, school administrators or social workers – one might be tempted to say, Marxists all. But I see your point. Most are probably just climbing the moneyed mountain of politically correct garbage to success. Power and money go together like the horse and carriage. But Obama is said to have had a doctrinaire Marxist mentor in the card-carrying Communist Frank Marshall Davis. Communism is a misnomer anyway. The Soviets were simply socialists of a criminal variety. Forgive me, I ramble and delving into the taxonomy of it all is fruitless. It changes like the flu virus.

  • Frank Marshall Davis was a buddy of Stanley Dunham, their avocational activities including toking and playing checkers. He was an elderly divorce with five children of his own and it’s a reasonable wager he had after nearly 30 years residence in Honolulu long since gone native. I would not read too much into his presence.

    I think you’d have to scrounge to find many Marxists in contemporary academe, and the one’s you find will be literary critics or congealing in the theoretical wing of sociology (though there’s a little rat’s nest in what’s left of academic geography as well). The one Marxisant character I knew the last place I worked was an agreeable and someone diffident man not too interested in the fads which sweep over academic institutions. He was a student of Marxism and an admirer of Keynes. Never heard one word out of him suggesting he had any investment in the race-class-gender yap which is the Official Idea most places.

    I’ll wager you also that the attitudes you refer to are among academics like the clothes you wear, status and identity markers. I never saw much evidence in their table talk that they deliberated on the much (though the ones who did were ideologues). They may be anxious about giving voice to dissenting opinions, but careerism sustains such a nexus of ideas by inhibiting discussion; it does not generate those ideas or make them attractive. Also, the financial ambition of people working in the occupations named is demonstrably circumscribed bar perhaps attorneys. You do hear professors complain about their salaries, commonly comparing them to family members who are not professors. You want to earn like a lawyer, you have to practice law, generally a more uncertain and anxiety provoking way of earning a living than is working as a tenured professor.

  • The only unqualified right is the right of the people to live under laws of their own making and magistrates of their own choosing.
    Rousseau saw this very well. “Each man alienates, I admit, by the social compact, only such part of his powers, goods and liberty as it is important for the community to control; but it must also be granted that the Sovereign [the People] is sole judge of what is important,” for “ if the individuals retained certain rights, as there would be no common superior to decide between them and the public, each, being on one point his own judge, would ask to be so on all; the state of nature would thus continue, and the association would necessarily become inoperative or tyrannical.”

    Scalia J agrees with him. “The whole theory of democracy, my dear fellow, is that the majority rules, that is the whole theory of it. You protect minorities only because the majority determines that there are certain minorities or certain minority positions that deserve protection. Thus in the United States Constitution we have removed from the majoritarian system of democracy the freedom of speech, the freedom of religion, and a few other freedoms that are named in the Bill of Rights. The whole purpose of that is that the people themselves, that is to say the majority, agree to the rights of the minority on those subjects — but not on other subjects.” He summarises his position, as follows, “The minority loses, except to the extent that the majority, in its document of government, has agreed to accord the minority rights.”

  • On learning that the itinerary for today’s rassemblement is from the Place de la République to the Place de la Nation via the bd Voltaire, I did find myself wondering what the Father of French Satire’s riposte to Dr. Donohue might have been.

  • “Liberty is a means to an end” That end is salvation. Liberty without God (atheism) has no purpose.

  • Thank you Art Deco, for the update on whether Marx still lurks in academic groves. My working at Dartmouth was forty-three years ago and my impressions are becoming antique. Marxism was error as it flowed from Karl’s pen. Perhaps my analogy of an ever-changing virus infecting those on the left may redeem my lack of currency.

  • Supreme Court Justice Scalia stands for “due process of law” for each and every person, the unborn as well as the born. The executed were denied “due process of law”. Their executioners were law unto themselves. This means that all persons were disenfranchised of their civil rights, stripped of their citizenship and made subject to their executioners.

  • Marx is still there, even if Marxists aren’t. Marx is there. So’s Hegel, or at least Hegel according to Marx, along with Nietzsche, or rather Nietzsche according to Freud, Weber, Heidegger, etc.. And then there’s that Frankfurt School mishmash of Marx and Nietzsche.
    .
    It’s just nobody knows all that Continental angst is there anymore because it’s been processed, pasteurized, homogenized, amalgamated, fortified and essentialized, and then sugar coated so the medicine goes down.
    .
    Anyways, I think that’s what Allan Bloom was complaining about.
    .
    After he got done complaining about Mick Jagger.

  • “It’s just nobody knows all that Continental angst is there anymore because it’s been processed, pasteurized, homogenized, amalgamated, fortified and essentialized, and then sugar coated so the medicine goes down.”
    Thank you Ernst, I sensed that even after all these years, the recipe for that witch’s brew has not changed all that much. “Double, double, toil and trouble; Fire burn and cauldron bubble.” We turn on the news and, “By the pricking of my thumbs,
    Something wicked this way comes.” ;-(

  • Marx is still there, even if Marxists aren’t. Marx is there.

    No, Marx is not there. The affinities of the academy are readily recognizable, and have little to do with any Theory of Everything ginned up 150 years ago.

  • A mutating virus even at the beginning when Marxists argued with other self-proclaimed Marxists as to what was acceptable and what could get you an icepick driven into your head. Today we have namby-pamby collectivists regulating us to death rather than robust Bolsheviks bristling with Mosin Nagants and Molotov Cocktails. Such violent thoughts! I think I’ll take a pill and lie down. 😉

  • Art Deco: ‘”While we’re on the subject of free speech, it has been the contention of the sort of people who produce verbiage and images for a living that they should have plenary discretion to do so.”
    .
    “homosexual pseudogamy, parody wedding ceremonies obnoxious nuisance, practitioners of identity politics.”
    .
    Excellent. A language, words to defeat the lie. May I share?

  • All my words are in the public domain. (And ‘homosexual pseudogamy’ was Anthony Esolen’s coinage, I believe).

  • I fully expect we’ll see an upcoming TAC article titled “Pope Francis Continues to Beclown Himself.” http://news.yahoo.com/pope-charlie-hebdo-limits-free-expression-121639260.html
    I also expect to see those criticizing Donohue for an analogy not fitting perfectly to point out how the minute details of the pope’s analogy don’t work. Donohue’s analogy was a better fit. The pope’s comments about free speech go much further than what Donohue said.

  • When it comes to liberty, I would not cite Pope Francis as an authority. Far too much Peronism in his ideological make up.

  • I fully expect we’ll see an upcoming TAC article titled “Pope Francis Continues to Beclown Himself.”

    Alas there are only so many hours in the day.

  • If Charlie Hebdo’s cartoons were not scatological and trashy, Neither Donohue’s nor Pope Francis’ criticisms would be valid, and I should hope would be unspoken.

  • Far too much Peronism in his ideological make up.

    Or perhaps international bien-pensant static. And now an encyclical on ‘climate change’. We get Albert Gore’s idees fixe, then maybe an encyclical on Mary Robinson’s, then on Desmond Tutu’s, then on Baroness Ashton’s…zzz.

  • There’s nothing peculiarly Marxist about many of the misconceptions she discusses and she’s not discussing the signature features of what addles academics and journalists.

  • More beclowning. Charlie Hebdo co-founder blames editor for the killings. http://news.yahoo.com/charlie-hebdo-founder-blames-slain-editor-for-provoking-attack-185458716.html
    .
    “I believe that we [were] fools who took an unnecessary risk,” Roussel, who writes under the pen name Delfeil de Ton, continued. “That’s it. We think we are invulnerable. For years, decades even, it was a provocation, and then one day the provocation turns against us.
    Is he saying the editor shares some culpability? Tsk, tsk. Freedom of speech has no limit. Push it as far as you want. 😉

  • Art-
    if that was a response to Sarah’s articles, it makes no sense. Marx is not less present at colleges by there being others who also follow his theory, and no offense to you but I trust Sarah’s explicit education in Marxism over your impression of what it really is.

  • “I believe that we [were] fools who took an unnecessary risk,”
    Freedom of speech until someone is offended is absolutely worthless. Life as a dhimmi I guess does have charms for some.

  • “I believe that we [were] fools who took an unnecessary risk,” Especially in a country that denies its citizens their God-given human right to possess and carry means of self-defense. We see the Chief Rabbi of Paris pleading with the government to allow at least designated persons to carry firearms in defense of the Jews in France. For as they say, when seconds count, the police are just minutes away. This is a world turned upside down.

  • Marx is not less present at colleges by there being others who also follow his theory, and no offense to you but I trust Sarah’s explicit education in Marxism over your impression of what it really is.

    Marx is not animating the thought student affairs apparat at your local college, no matter what Sarah Hoyt got handed in a Portuguese high school (and her complaints are a kitchen sink). Their wretched policy and procedures manual is animating them. Their social ideology, to the extent they actually hold one, is one fixed on posited status hierarchies which owe little to notions of class conflict derived from modes of production (and the social work project of people like them ‘redressing’ ‘disparities).

  • William P Walsh wrote, “a country that denies its citizens their God-given human right to possess and carry means of self-defense.”

    The French have long memories and recall les journées de juin 1848 and la semaine sanglante (21-28 June 1871) too well to allow the workers to arm.

  • Interesting observation Michael, the Eldest Daughter of the Church has certainly a storied past. Marx and Lenin considered the rebellions in France to be inspirational and instructive. I think the French rebels obtained most of their weapons by stealing them from the armories of the National Guard. And not too worry, how do Sans-culottes carry concealed? 😉

  • William P Walsh wrote, “I think the French rebels obtained most of their weapons by stealing them from the armories of the National Guard.”

    Which was promptly disbanded by Thiers in 1872, after the Commune’s defeat by the army and its functions transferred to the Reserve.

    More recently, there were real concerns in 1945 over whether the Maquis could be persuaded to lay down its arms and it took all the efforts of the Tri-Partite Provisional Government to persuade them to do so.

  • The French have long memories

    I doubt any longer than anyone else’s. Inertia is the strongest vector influencing public policy. France actually is characterized by witless centralization. It’d be interesting to see a study of the prevalence of pressure groups apart from the political baronies which form derived from the country’s political parties.

  • Art Deco wrote, “It’d be interesting to see a study of the prevalence of pressure groups…”

    They are very numerous. My Law Agent and his wife are active in the Consistoire Central that takes care of Jewish religious issues, the Fonds Social Juif Unifié, in charge of welfare and education and the CRIF, which represents French Jewry on a political level. There is a Jewish press, with periodicals such as L’Arche, four radio stations in Paris and many provincial ones, a Jewish TV channel and so on.

    Another example is the Confédération Paysanne or CP, which represents rural interests and which has beeen a thorn in the side of government since its foundation in 1987.

    The Grand Orient de France (GOdF) which represents French masonry is regularly consulted by government and by commissions of the National Assembly.

    There are a host of others.

  • D.R.M- I have always agreed with you…. till now. i still love you and your history vinyettes”- – did you see Charlie’s cartoon of God the Father being sodomized by God the Son who is being had by God the Holy Ghost??- turned my stomach and made me wonder what the Just Anger of the Son of Man would do when the editor is in his particular judgement- you know, that loneliest of all situations…. being blown away by some mussi may seem like a good thing then…me thinks- one bad for you…. but i relish your posts and they are head and shoulders above anything else i see

  • Thank you Paul for your kind comments. I have never called the French mag anything but vile, but to me that is not the point. Freedom is too precious for it to be circumscribed either by those who use it in vile ways or by jihadist murderers. As for disagreeing with me, sometimes I disagree with myself between morning and evening!

  • This to me is the point. The victims from Charlie are just that — victims. Any suggestion that they had it coming is offensive beyond measure. Any suggestion that they are heroic martyrs to free expression is juvenile nonsense.

  • Mike Petrik: “This to me is the point. The victims from Charlie are just that — victims. Any suggestion that they had it coming is offensive beyond measure. Any suggestion that they are heroic martyrs to free expression is juvenile nonsense.”

    .
    This is the explanation I will keep.

  • It seems to me Charlie Hebdo demonstrated pretty conclusively that a certain element of the muslim population living among us is prepared to murder anyone whose worldview differs from their own. That’s got to be some kind of witness to the truth, doesn’t it?

  • Ernst Schreiber wrote, “It seems to me Charlie Hebdo demonstrated pretty conclusively that a certain element of the muslim population living among us is prepared to murder anyone whose worldview differs from their own. That’s got to be some kind of witness to the truth, doesn’t it?”
    Especially as they were well aware of the risk; as Stephane Charbonnier said– « Ça fait sûrement un peu pompeux, mais je préfère mourir debout que vivre à genoux. » [This may seem a bit pompous, but I prefer to die on my feet than live on my knees]
    On recalls Sophie Scholl, “The real damage is done by those millions who want to ‘survive.’ The honest men who just want to be left in peace. Those who don’t want their little lives disturbed by anything bigger than themselves. Those with no sides and no causes. Those who won’t take measure of their own strength, for fear of antagonizing their own weakness. Those who don’t like to make waves -— or enemies. Those for whom freedom, honour, truth, and principles are only literature. Those who live small, mate small, die small. It’s the reductionist approach to life: if you keep it small, you’ll keep it under control. If you don’t make any noise, the bogeyman won’t find you. But it’s all an illusion, because they die too, those people who roll up their spirits into tiny little balls so as to be safe. Safe? From what? Life is always on the edge of death; narrow streets lead to the same place as wide avenues, and a little candle burns itself out just like a flaming torch does. I choose my own way to burn.”

  • paul coffey: “D.R.M- I have always agreed with you…. till now. i still love you and your history vinyettes”- – did you see Charlie’s cartoon of God the Father being sodomized by God the Son who is being had by God the Holy Ghost??- turned my stomach and made me wonder what the Just Anger of the Son of Man would do when the editor is in his particular judgement- you know, that loneliest of all situations…. being blown away by some mussi may seem like a good thing then…me thinks- one bad for you…. but i relish your posts and they are head and shoulders above anything else i see”
    .
    Each person is divine. Adopted children by God and brothers of Christ. This is our very salvation. So, yes, when God is slandered, perjured against in the court of public opinion, God’s divinity impugned as paul coffey posts, every man is slandered, perjured against in the court of public opinion, God’s divinity to man is impugned. Justice cries out to heaven for vindication. Is there Justice on earth that can vindicate God and God’s divine gift to man, salvation in Christ? Those who impugn God’s divinity deserve none. They are persons who have violated themselves, like self-abuse. Can a man sodomize himself? For those who need an answer: NO.
    .
    Jesus Said: “The Father and I are one.” Only Jesus took on a human nature. God the Father and God the Holy Ghost are pure and Holy Spirits.
    .
    Charlie Hebdo is a liar. I am not Charlie Hebdo. I do not want to be Charlie Hebdo. I will not be Charlie Hebdo.
    .
    The violation of freedom and the murders give testimony against Islam. I do not want to be Muslim. I will not be Muslim.
    .
    Those who hold with man’s divinity as adopted children of God have started to decline the embrace of Islam.

  • Obama ought to have gone to France to commiserate and be aggrieved with the French people for the horror that they have witnessed and must endure, even as Lafayette came to suffer with us in the cause of freedom.

  • vignette vs vinyette… the french idiom got lost with je suis. padon e moi

Blaming the Victims

Wednesday, January 7, AD 2015

Fan of Free Speech

Bill Donohue of the Catholic League is fuzzy on this whole free speech thing:

Bill Donohue comments on the killing of 12 people at the Paris office of the newspaper Charlie Hebdo:

Killing in response to insult, no matter how gross, must be unequivocally condemned. That is why what happened in Paris cannot be tolerated. But neither should we tolerate the kind of intolerance that provoked this violent reaction.

Those who work at this newspaper have a long and disgusting record of going way beyond the mere lampooning of public figures, and this is especially true of their depictions of religious figures. For example, they have shown nuns masturbating and popes wearing condoms. They have also shown Muhammad in pornographic poses.

Continue reading...

77 Responses to Blaming the Victims

  • I have believed for a long time that Bill Donahue is another person who needs a box of Duck Tape (TM) sent to him.

  • Angie,

    Archie Bunker?

  • Great posting Mr. McClarey.
    Do the feelings of the mourners count?
    The families that have lost their loved ones. Does Mr. Donohue share compassion with them?

  • According to Bill Donaghue, “What unites Muslims in their anger against Charlie Hebdo is the vulgar manner in which Muhammad has been portrayed. What they object to is being intentionally insulted over the course of many years…”

    And those of us who are not Muslims may consider ribald derision and scathing contempt the appropriate response to superstition and ignorance.

  • . Donohue pays himself $400,000 a year from donations …almost twice what a proctologist makes…and I think it is appropriate because he certainly gives me a double pain in the ass.

  • Thank you Donald McClarey for this insight into the way forward. Dr. Donohue of the Catholic League explains why the terrorists were inflamed but he does not countenance how the terrorists behaved. Assuming on all fronts that terrorism is condemned, Dr. Donohue did need to produce the law by which to go forth: the right to free speech and the consequences for our speech which would be what Donald McClarey has posted here.

  • Equal Justice requires that the penalty be commensurate with the crime. The terrorists need to produce a nation so lily white that Charlie Hebdo is seen for what it is: beneath contempt.

  • I’m slowly growing utterly infuriated by people acting like the satire was out of the blue.

    It’s like there was a group at a gathering, walking around being threatening, obscene and occasionally violent. Some members are being fine, and one or two try to tell the violent ones to cut it out, but they’re not stopped.
    Other folks at the gathering start to be rude to the nasty guys; a couple of guys rattle off an obscene suggestion of where they can go and what the rude guy can do to the horse he rode in on.
    The guys who have been rude, disruptive and violent since they got there pull out a gun and shoot the one that responded a fraction as rudely.
    And now people are standing up to denounce… the guys who flipped off the violent, rude guys, for doing it in a way that might offend the members of the group that weren’t stopping the violent, rude guys?

  • I’ve not been a huge fan of Donahue in recent years … but let’s admit he has a mission and plays out that mission, and it is a fair critique that a voice reminds folks on the less than uber innocence of that organization. I do not pretend that TAC has always been more noble than he.

  • Foxfier: “I’m slowly growing utterly infuriated by people acting like the satire was out of the blue.”

    .
    In Man for all Seasons, St. Thomas More tells Will Roper, his so-in-law “If he offends God, then, let God arrest him.” Separation of church and state. That is why we, the people have a constitution. Unless a theocracy is based of the ultimate love of God and neighbor as oneself, all the law of God and the prophets, it is a tyranny of the lame minded.
    .
    The assailants ought to have been evangelizing the culprits, rather than eliminating them. Islam does not evangelize the neighbor. Islam eliminates the neighbor. Therefore, Islam does not love God as God has commanded.

  • It’s correct to question the timing of Donohue’s post, but poor timing does not invalidate his arguments.
    .
    I don’t seem him blaming the victims. He tries to bring into focus the lack of respect for things people hold personal and sacred and how this creates friction, friction that can boil over into unjustified terrorism. His point is to say both sides in this situation show intolerance, and showing more tolerance and respect on each side would simmer the acrimony down. He expresses this personally when he says “Muhammad isn’t sacred to me, either, but it would never occur to me to deliberately insult Muslims by trashing him.”
    .
    I’m sure he understands freedom of speech, and nowhere did I see him suggesting any abridging of it.

  • No he does not understand freedom of speech. This sentence says it all:

    “But neither should we tolerate the kind of intolerance that provoked this violent reaction.”

    What the devil does that mean except for either state action or vigilante action to shut down the magazine. People are free to criticize what the magazine does, but that was not the point that publicity hound Donohue was seeking to make. He is as bad as the idiots on the left with their campus speech codes.

  • “I do not pretend that TAC has always been more noble than he.”

    Do you always toss non-sequiturs into your comments D Will, or was this a special occasion?

  • “But neither should we tolerate the kind of intolerance that provoked this violent reaction.”
    Is there a list of all the various intolerances I can refer back to? Like, where does pure jackassery fall, versus fauxhomophobia, versus beheading? Which intolerances rate which punishment and from whom? Will there be a vote?
    Just pray for the souls of the departed, Mr. Donahue; they were dear to somebody. Don’t try to lead us down a road that can only end in a scaffold for Christians.

  • No he does not understand freedom of speech. This sentence says it all:”
    .
    His call for not tolerating what this magazine was doing is not necessarily a call for legal action. It could be as simple as public shaming. I think your post it trying to do something very similar with regards to Donohue’s post. No? Yet, I don’t think you are calling for limiting free speech.

  • Every one of us believe in some level of limiting free speech … usually our conscience and common sense acts as the appropriate guide, but we know this falls pretty flat in the regulatory realm. I agree, a little shame can be a useful effort.

  • I came across a link to this at the Speccie Coffee House blog…

    “I am DONE!!! Whenever I try to say, it’s okay, terrorism is not Islam, ANOTHER TERRORIST ATTACK DONE BY MUSLIMS COMES UP ON THE NEWS!!! I am having panic attacks, and want to kill myself. WHAT MAKES ME FEEL HORRIBLE IS THAT I CAN’T DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT!!! I am useless, I can’t stop these terrorists, and how come only Muslims do these kind of attacks. I’m SICK AND TIRED OF ALL THE CRAP! I am tired of uselessness, muslims keep killing, so it makes me wonder, are we really a religion of peace? I will never be accepted, just because i’m muslim. I used to blame them….but now I am started to hate us…… I am starting to hate muslim, I BEING ONE! Maybe I won’t be for long. IN PARIS JUST NOW!!! 12 PEOPLE KILLED, STUPID TERRORISTS SAYING ALLAHHUAKBAR AND OH MY GOD I’M DONE!!!!!! I AM DONE!!! Why do they keep doing this, what can we do. Why doesn’t Allah help the muslim UMMAH!!! Why are we not being helped. I pray and pray for this to stop but it never does. It makes me feel like duas do not work. WHY WON’T ALLAH HELP US! WHY CAN”T WE BE SAVED!!! WHY WAS I BORN MUSLIM!!! I am also moving to the US and I will be bullied to death so might as well kill myself now. WHY CAN’T WE MUSLIMS TAKE CRITISM OF SOME STUPID CARTOONS!!! They are just cartoons, WTF!!! I want to DIE. What do I do, I can’t just put my fingers in my ears and scream LALALALALA I see and hear nothing, I see and hear nothing…IT IS HAPPENING!!! I don’t understand, WHY AM I USELESS, WHY DOESNT THE WORLD JUST END………”

    Utterly heartbreaking to read.

    Please pray for this poor tortured soul and what years of experience teaches me are many many like her…

  • It’s hard amidst emotional turmoil to maintain important distinctions, but here’s a try: there is no “right to free expression.” A rightly ordered society does not allow any and every opinion to be voiced with no ramification. In our country, we’ve gone from a clear understanding of the limits of “free speech” to a wide open, no holds barred allowance of the much broader “free expression.”

    In the US, the First Amendment forbids the government(and really, only the federal government) from abridging free speech. There is no general right to free speech that prevents one from being ostracized, criticized, boycotted, and even sued for offensive speech. Rightly understood, the First Amendment doesn’t even prevent a state from restricting “speech.”

    Absolutism about “free expression” has brought us unhindered pornography, grotesquely violent movies and games, and yes, utterly socially worthless offensive “art” such as “Piss Christ” and these offensive-to-Islam cartoons.

    It is entirely possible to hold the intellectual position that the incendiary “speech” (not really speech at all, but “expression”) practiced by Charlie Hebdo should never have been allowed in the first place; and at the same time to recognize that summary execution of the editors and two police officers merits only the deaths of the perpetrators.

    I would say that “Piss Christ” for example, was not any form of protected speech under the constitution; but that having been disseminated, it would have been utterly evil for, say, a Knight of Columbus to shoot up the museum and kill the “artist.” Just so with this case in France.

  • Apologies. I neglected to provide a link to the original.

    http://www.ummah.com/forum/showthread.php?428786-Im-done!

  • Kyle,
    Donohue had absolutely no tolerance for the freedom of speech of the non Catholic owner of the Empire State Building which had feted a Pope in the past but would not fete Mother Teresa perhaps in a change of policy to insure they never had to fete really odd religious characters in the future eg Jihadists in their use of private resources. He then went beyond words to intolerance in action and tried to hurt them in the pocketbook. I believe Donohue makes money in part from quite poor old city Catholics who have no idea of the salary he is drawing partly from their poverty while they cannot pay for teeth crowns after property taxes …on their small pensions. He saw at some point that rage pays big time in many small donations…maybe not Fr. Corapi bigtime…but bigtime nonetheless.

  • “His call for not tolerating what this magazine was doing is not necessarily a call for legal action.”

    I take him at his word Kyle. If he was not calling for state action or vigilantism then his statement was truly meaningless since all of us have the freedom to criticize any speech we do not like.

  • Looks like Mr. Bill is walking back his earlier statement:
    .
    http://www.catholicleague.org/charlie-hebdo-perverts-freedom/
    .
    (they emailed it about 12:30 today)

  • tolerate
    [ ˈtäləˌrāt ]
    VERB
    allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that one does not necessarily like or agree with) without interference:
    “a regime unwilling to tolerate dissent”
    synonyms: allow · permit · condone · accept · swallow · countenance · More
    Powered by OxfordDictionaries · © Oxford University Press

    and
    interfere
    [ ˌintərˈfi(ə)r ]
    VERB
    prevent (a process or activity) from continuing or being carried out properly:
    “a job would interfere with his studies”
    synonyms: impede · obstruct · stand in the way of · hinder · inhibit · More

    Powered by OxfordDictionaries · © Oxford University Press

    Oxford definitions via Bing’s search.
    ****
    To object is not to interfere; to answer is not to interfere; to decry is not to interfere.
    As Donald says, per his words, he says we should not allow the activity to continue or be carried out.

  • Bill,
    We can discuss Donohue’s previous statements and theories on his compensation, but I’m discussing his latest post in regards to this act of terrorism. If it is Al Sharpton race baiting or Charlie Hebdo religion baiting, they deserve condemnation without violence.
    .
    Don,
    The public can show disapproval of certain behaviors beyond criticism without resorting to state action or vigilantism.

  • exNOAAman,
    Looks like quite the opposite. Looks like standing ground and clarification. I don’t read anything really disagreeable.

  • There’s a difference between Al Sharpton inciting violence against others and Charlie Hebdo inciting violence against themselves.

  • “Don,
    The public can show disapproval of certain behaviors beyond criticism without resorting to state action or vigilantism.”

    Of course they can Kyle and if that is all that Donohue meant his statement is rendered meaningless. I think he had something else in mind a la a hate speech code which is anathema to freedom of speech.

  • Ernst Schreiber,
    The result of their actions are the same, i.e. stirring of acrimony. The victims differ.

  • Of course they can Kyle and if that is all that Donohue meant his statement is rendered meaningless. I think he had something else in mind a la a hate speech code which is anathema to freedom of speech.
    .
    Hate speech code? Really? Even in his very latest post made today he makes clear that’s not what he is calling for. Are you calling for hate speech code because of your post condemning Donohue’s post? I don’t think so. It would be wrong for me to interpret beyond what you wrote.
    .
    if that is all that Donohue meant his statement is rendered meaningless.”
    .
    So, anything less than state action or vigilantism is meaningless??

  • “Hate speech code?”

    Yep. Not tolerating something implies more than criticism which is what people are free to do in any case. In Donahue’s bloviating cya today he makes crystal clear his position that what Charlie Hebdo was doing does not deserve freedom of speech protection:

    “Freedom of speech is not an end—it is a means to an end. For Americans, the end is nicely spelled out in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution: the goal is to “form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.”

    No fair-minded reading of the Preamble suggests that it was written to facilitate the right to intentionally and persistently insult people of faith with scatological commentary. Moreover, the purpose of free speech is political discourse: it exists to protect the right of men and women to agree and disagree about the makings of the good society.”

    As a legal matter the preamble does not limit the scope of the Bill of Rights and free speech has never been limited to political speech.

  • Yep. Not tolerating something implies more than criticism which is what people are free to do in any case
    I can think of a lot of sins I can’t tolerate, personally and otherwise. Being an intolerable sin is not enough to qualify for legal action, but intolerant it is to me.
    .
    In Donahue’s bloviating cya today he makes crystal clear his position that what Charlie Hebdo was doing does not deserve freedom of speech protection
    He’s no legal scholar. I can only assume he is taking a Justice Thomas approach, viewing the Constitution “through the lens” of what precedes it, preamble for Donohue and Declaration of Independence for Thomas.
    .
    Being as this was in France, the U.S. Constitution would have no bearing anyway.
    .
    He also made this clear…
    As I have said countless times, everyone has a legal right to insult my religion (or the religion of others), but no one has a moral right to do so.

  • “As I have said countless times, everyone has a legal right to insult my religion (or the religion of others), but no one has a moral right to do so.”

    Then why was he at pains to argue that freedom of speech would not cover what Charlie Hebdo was doing? I agree that the Constitution of course does not apply in France, but it was Donohue’s incoherent statement, not mine. (As it happens freedom of speech in France labors under restrictions that most Americans would find galling.) The simple truth of course is that Donohue is taking a lot of heat for his first statement, so he falls back on bluster and attempts at justification. Better for him to have quit when he was behind.

  • I think I agree with Kyle. The notion that certain behaviors should not be tolerated does not presuppose legal or violent remedies. We should not tolerate people who abuse their freedom of expression in the manner of this rag by removing them from our society. And by this I do not mean physically kicking them out of a certain place. Civilized people should consider those who routinely bully behave in wicked and mean ways, especially toward the weak, to be beneath contempt and unworthy of social intercourse. In other words they should be shunned. Those jerks at that rag should have been shunned, not killed or imprisoned.

  • Mike Petrik wrote:

    “Those jerks…”

    Jesus wept…

  • Yes, Kennybhoy. He wept when those jerks published cartoons of nuns masturbating.

  • The notion that certain behaviors should not be tolerated

    Brings up interesting issues – at what point does “speech” become a “behavior” and to what extent do they overlap or are interchangeable? If the freedom of speech is intended to protect the free exchange of ideas, can behavior be a form of “exchange of ideas” and therefore protected? Was CH speech, behavior, a combination of both? Regardless, none of it could justify or excuse the terrorists’ response.

  • Yes, and Kennybhoy, He wept when those terrorists murdered those jerks too. I don’t think He wept just because I called the late jerks, jerks.

  • I’m anxious to know Mike and Kyle’s opinion on women’s fashion trends of the last 50-60 years and how they pertain to the current “rape crisis” on college campi.
    .

    No I’m not.

  • In the US the written publication of words or pictures that are designed to communicate or express something is almost always within the protective ambit of the First Amendment, and this is a good thing. But just because something is legally permissible does not mean that it cannot be criticized, and that criticism can and often should include social sanction. Calls should not be returned and vendors and customers should disassociate.

  • Reading comprehension not your strong suit, Ernst?
    Perhaps you think that the wicked murder of a jerk renders the jerk not a jerk? Wow, does the same trick work for serial rapists?

  • Then why was he at pains to argue that freedom of speech would not cover what Charlie Hebdo was doing?
    I think he’s arguing the necessity to use prudence when exercising liberties. Expressions like what Charlie Hebdo did failed to meet the moral spirit or imperative of the preamble while be legally permitted. It’s the classic “you could do it, but should you?” argument. He answers no. Others say it’s licit because… freedom of speech, which is why he says freedom of speech is not the end.
    .
    The simple truth of course is that Donohue is taking a lot of heat…
    You could have ended the sentence there and have the same meaning. He’s takes heat for nearly everything he writes. (He has a few enemies.) But obviously the heat and criticism, e.g. this blog entry, is meaningless without state action or vigilantism. 😉
    .
    People feel inclined to hold Charlie Hebdo up as some martyr or saint of free speech. I disagree. It’s not like they were killed for speaking out for civil rights, the vulnerable or some other noble cause. (Elevate the people who do!) Charlie Hebdo is a victim of an unjust crime, an act of terrorism. Find the perps and prosecute.

  • Yes, not all victims are martyrs, but they are victims nonetheless. I took Donohue’s statements to be entirely consistent with that.

  • I’m more concerned about not creating a precedent for a jerk needed killing exception than I am in attempting to qualify the jerkiness of the murdered jerk or quantify the liability of the jerk for his murder.
    .
    Sticking up little Nigerian girls kidnapped by boko haram is easy. The real test is in sticking up for jerks like the cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo.
    .
    And we’re doing a p*ss poor job of sticking up for little Nigerian girls.
    .
    One more thing. They actually were killed for speaking out for civil rights: The right to say things others find offensive.
    .
    And it’s the right to criticize and disagree, and even offend that’s vulnerable.

  • No one here is remotely advocating for such an exception, Ernst. Instead, everyone has made it clear that such an exception would be a wicked horror.

    But I seriously dooubt that these cartoonists were killed for speaking out in favor of saying things others find offensive; instead they were killed for saying things that others find offense. Again, one does not need murder victim to be a saint or hero in order to nonetheless be a victim of a murderer.

  • I seriously dooubt that these cartoonists were killed for speaking out in favor of saying things others find offensive; instead they were killed for saying things that others find offens[ive].

    You do realize that’s a distinction without a difference, don’t you?

    And if we’re not admitting of the possibility of a jerks needed killing exception in all of this that was wrong, killing, those jerks like that, but they were really jerky jerks weren’t they?* talk, then why all this complaining about the spittle on the sidewalk when the blood next to it hasn’t even dried yet?

    *That’s my admittedly crude gloss of the conversation, but I don’t believe it’s an unfair one.

  • Ernst, are you being deliberately obtuse?
    Seriously, you don’t see the difference? Do you think that these terrorists are going to go after you, me, or Larry Tribe? Each of us is in favor of the right of people to say things that are offensive, you know.
    If you are going to insult the moral understandings of others (“Jesus wept”), you should first demonstrate your ability to reason about morality.
    And the reason for the complaining is because folks like you are suggesting that Donohue’s acknowledgement of the “jerky” nature of the victims somehow meant that he endorsed their murder, which is a scurrilous lie. Donohue is right. These victims were jerks, and their their murder was a mortal sin. At most Donohue is guilty of suggesting a false equivalence in suggesting that because neither jerky behavior nor murder should be tolerated they are equally morally problematic. I’m sure he did not mean that, but would could infer it if one were inclined to take conveniently self-righteous inferential liberties.

  • Do you think that these terrorists are going to go after you, me, or Larry Tribe? Each of us is in favor of the right of people to say things that are offensive, you know.
    They will.
    We are Catholic.
    I am an uncovered woman.
    We are not paying the tax.
    They always have a reason.

  • I have read it all and I am underwater with this thing.
    .
    Only TRUTH, WHO is Jesus Christ, has freedom of speech, press and peaceable assembly. (and peaceable assembly means to imitate Jesus Christ.) Everything else is perjury in a court of law and a lie in the public square. All men are created equal and can be required to give a good account of themselves in public. On the American Catholic I have often failed to give sources, and hope I am not going to be excised. In this matter, “put up or shut up” needs to be implemented. Does the masturbating nun have a name? Who is she and where is she? Every nun has a right to demand a good accounting. So, she could sue them in a court of law for bearing false witness, again, the Eighth Commandment. Does the cartoon look like the Pope or Mohammed, sue them in a court of law or shun them until they go bankrupt, as Mike Petric suggested.
    .
    The state has the power, the country has the authority from the people who constitute the government to declare this outrageous rag as “person non grata” and exile the dirty minded b–tards. Criminals of all strips can also be deterred by keeping them moving on, in the same way that the government causes protesters at abortion clinics to keep moving in a circle without stopping.
    .
    This magazine sucked the life out of freedom of speech and freedom in general. How does one take his children into the public square and not be offended by garbage. Don Wildmon shut down K-Mart pornography. God gives us free will and the will to live decently. It really would have been better if France had exiled that rag to Iraq.
    .
    As far as rape goes on public university campuses: First, the university is not legally equipped nor is it authorized to prosecute the crime of rape. Rape is the business of the state. The university suspending the rapist, leaving him no criminal record or other punishment, is a crime against the victim and society by starting a precedent that denies Justice to all people.
    .
    There was a case and I am ashamed to tell the name of the university, where the rapist was suspended for two months. The father of the girl demanded state prosecution. The court said that this would be double jeopardy as the rapist had already been suspended for two months. I am not above sandwich boards in front of the rapist’s house. The prosecutor failed to prosecute. Let the crime be on him/her.
    .
    And let the terrorist attack be on the government of France for not acting in ridding itself of this evil. So, yes, the murdered victims were victims of their own making and that of France for not acting in their behalf by getting rid of them as “persona non-grata”.

  • I’ve never cared for Bill Donohue’s approach to combating anti-Catholicism (real or imagined) because it basically boils down to “we can play the PC protected victim class game too”. Whenever the Church is ridiculed, insulted, or criticized, his response 99 percent of the time is “They would never get away with doing this to Muslims, Jews, Blacks, gays, etc.”. Yes, he may be right about that, but is the solution to become just as insufferable and thin-skinned as they are?

    Also, let’s not get censorship confused with discretion. Censorship seeks to prevent offensive material from ever being created in the first place, or to eliminate it wherever it exists, and to punish those who create it. Exercising discretion in how or where one chooses to display or present offensive material (e.g., schools choosing what books to stock in their libraries, stores choosing not to sell Playboy, Cosmo, etc.) is NOT censorship, since the material remains available elsewhere.

  • Do you think that these terrorists are going to go after you, me, or Larry Tribe? Each of us is in favor of the right of people to say things that are offensive, you know.
    They will.
    We are Catholic.
    I am an uncovered woman.
    We are not paying the tax.
    They always have a reason.

    What foxfier said.

    But go ahead and hope the crocodile will eat you last, if that’s what you want. Try not to splash around to much. You might call attention to yourself.

  • Also, let’s not get censorship confused with discretion. Censorship seeks to prevent offensive material from ever being created in the first place, or to eliminate it wherever it exists, and to punish those who create it. Exercising discretion in how or where one chooses to display or present offensive material (e.g., schools choosing what books to stock in their libraries, stores choosing not to sell Playboy, Cosmo, etc.) is NOT censorship, since the material remains available elsewhere.

    When it becomes discrete to not display or present material that offends because the offended will kill you, is that not tantamount to censorship?

  • Oh good. I was worried that I might be more obtuse than usual today.

    [“]The massacre at the Paris offices of the venerable satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo has been met with near-universal condemnation, but a growing chorus of self-appointed arbiters of good taste are going public, following up cursory denunciations of the murders with caveats that Charlie Hebdo is a “provocative,” “racist,” “Islamophobic,” “homophobic” publication who brought much of its trouble on itself.[“]
    .
    Without even reading the rest of the article, I’m betting most of these “arbiters of good taste” are the same people who think we should teach all men not to rape.

  • This has been a very strange thread. Basically, some posters seem to be falling all over themselves to argue that no one should be inhibited from freely expressing his opinion, however odious it might be, for fear of criminal punishment or violence. The problem is that no one on this blog — and certainly not Donohue — advocates otherwise. I’m no fan of Donohue for the reasons expressed by Elaine, but Donohue is right in his description of the magazine. Bullies who publish mean-spirited and hurtful nonsense for the very purpose of offending should not be tolerated by members of polite society. Thinking people should shun and avoid association with such jerks, rather than lionize them as martyrs to the monument of free expression. Let’s be clear — the martyrs of free expression are those men and women in the armed forces who die for the purpose of protecting our rights, not those who exercise those rights in shameful ways. The victims of this violence are just that — victims, not heroes, not martyrs. They were not responsible for their own murders — their murderers were; but they were responsible for what they published and their deaths do not miraculously change that.

  • The only God given right of freedom of speech is the right to say what is true. For the good of society, we must tolerate a certain amount of false or invective speech. The law regarding slander and libel is an attempt to strike a balance between tolerating certain false, questionable, and invective, statements or publications to be made and always allowing the truth to be stated or published.

  • Regarding separation of Church and State in AU MILIEU DES SOLLICITUDES
    Pope Leo XIII stated as follows:
    “28. We shall not hold to the same language on another point, concerning the principle of the separation of the State and Church, which is equivalent to the separation of human legislation from Christian and divine legislation. We do not care to interrupt Ourselves here in order to demonstrate the absurdity of such a separation; each one will understand for himself. As soon as the State refuses to give to God what belongs to God, by a necessary consequence it refuses to give to citizens that to which, as men, they have a right; as, whether agreeable or not to accept, it cannot be denied that man’s rights spring from his duty toward God. Whence if follows that the State, by missing in this connection the principal object of its institution, finally becomes false to itself by denying that which is the reason of its own existence. These superior truths are so clearly proclaimed by the voice of even natural reason, that they force themselves upon all who are not blinded by the violence of passion; therefore Catholics cannot be too careful in defending themselves against such a separation. In fact, to wish that the State would separate itself from the Church would be to wish, by a logical sequence, that the Church be reduced to the liberty of living according to the law common to all citizens…. It is true that in certain countries this state of affairs exists. It is a condition which, if it have numerous and serious inconveniences, also offers some advantages – above all when, by a fortunate inconsistency, the legislator is inspired by Christian principles – and, though these advantages cannot justify the false principle of separation nor authorize its defence, they nevertheless render worthy of toleration a situation which, practically, might be worse.”

  • The behavior of the victims has nothing to do with it… I think of the earnest young man, Foley, who was beheaded last fall; a week later another good man, Jewish, was beheaded, followed by a good person, an aid worker form England. who also had converted to Islam.
    As was stated above on this page, the jihadis will always have a reason, svn if the only apparent reason is a bloodlust.
    I am sorry for the people of “charlie”. We Catholics can do a better job of evangelizing these educated talented elites. Why do they hate us so much? Our war is at least on two fronts: the secular atheists who attack our religious rights, and the jihadis.

  • Donohue’s a distraction. And an enervating one at that. So’s trying to assign the proper portion of blame to the massacred for the offense of offending the easily offended and aggrieving the perpetually aggrieved. This is about opposing the heckler’s veto. This is about recognizing that Islamists are at war with the West for reasons of their own rather than because of anything anyone in the West has done to them.
    .
    “Why do they hate us so much?” Anzlyne asked. Because they hate.

  • I’m going to riff off another comment on the Reason roundup of equivocating responses to yesterday’s terror attack. I linked earlier, and then I’ll let it go (much to everyone’s relief, no doubt).

    Charlie Hebdo was racist, misogynistic, crude and vulgar. One should be able to say that because it is true.
    .
    Just because someone is slaughtered by Islamists doesn’t magically turn them into saints.

    It seems to me that the commenter’s point is irrelevant because it misses the main point. The Charlie Hebdo victims were slaughtered not because Charlie Hebdo was racist, misogynistic, crude and vulgar, but because Islam was not exempted from their crudity and vulgarity. But even that is only part of the amin point. The Islamists who carried out this massacre acted upon a pretext. If it hadn’t been Charlie Hebdo, it would have been something else.
    .
    All this rationalization and contextualizing, all this explaining away is just appeasement by another name.
    .
    I wish I could remember what Orwell said back in 1940 or 41 about British pacifists being objectively on the side of the Nazis; it applies here.

  • I just thought of one more thing, so I guess I lied when I said I’d let it go. Maybe I’ll mean it this time.
    .
    You want to know what the most offensive thing ever spoken was?
    .
    “Amen, amen, I say to you, before Abraham came to be, I AM.” (John 8:58)
    .
    The runner up is “Today, this scripture passage* is fulfilled in your hearing*.” (Luke 4:21)
    .
    (*The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has annointed me to bring glad tidings to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to captives and recover of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free, and to proclaim a year acceptable to the Lord. ( Luke 4:18-19; cf. Is 61:1-2, 58:6))
    .
    Maybe I can get some sleep now that I’ve got that out of my system.

  • Vincent A Lewis wrote, “The only God given right of freedom of speech is the right to say what is true.”

    Really? What about

    Giving orders –
    Forming and testing a hypothesis—
    Presenting the results of an experiment in tables and diagrams—
    Making up a story; and reading it—
    Play-acting—
    Singing catches—
    Guessing riddles—
    Making a joke; telling it—
    Solving a problem in practical arithmetic—
    Translating from one language into another—
    Asking, thanking, cursing, greeting, praying –

    There is much more to speech than “saying what is true.”

  • Mike-
    Possibly it is “strange” to you because you insist on acting like the guys who refused to give in to the actual bullies– “do what we say, or else”– were the bullies.
    The “offensive” stuff did not come out of the blue.
    You’re pulling the same thing that schools do when they expel the guy who raised a hand in self defense, because fighting is wrong, and completely ignore that he was punched several times before even doing that.

  • Foxfier, I think you have a misimpression of either my position or the nature Charlie Hebdo. I do not think that the Catholic Church provoked the magazine’s lurid and gratuitous depictions of masturbating nuns and perverted priests, etc. The magazine is not some heroic defender of either the West or free speech. It is a scurrilous rag with mean-spirited content that intends to offend, rather than persuade or enlighten. That is not to say that such behavior is a warrant for murder — of course not; and that is not to say that murderers are not worthy of condemnation and punishment — of course they are. But Charlie Hebdo was and is in fact a mean-spirited rag that caters to both the ignorance of the masses as well as the conceits of the elite. The victims who were responsible for such content deserve our prayers, of course, but not our admiration.

  • End note: Many of my more orthodox Jewish friends take seriously the idea that one should never mention God by name, to the point that even in writing they will type G-d. Accordingly, when in their presence or in a written exchange I often employ the same convention, simply out of respect, even though I’m confident that if I didn’t they would take no offense (unlike the jihadists who view behaviors incompatible with their own conventions to be a warrant for violence). Attitudinally, Charlie Hebdo would respond to my Jewish friends by gratuitously speaking and writing God, Yaweh, etc as much as possible for the very purpose and with the precise hope of committing offense.

  • Mike-
    not only does your argument not support your assertion, it engages in a lot of mind-reading or assumption of motivation.
    Given people who are openly saying they kill people because they disagree with them, and people who are making points you don’t like in very rude ways, you decide to make statements about how horrible the motives of the one that won’t kill you are.
    I’m done.

  • Foxfier,
    I think you are mistaking publishing meanspirited distortions about convenient targets for speaking truth to power. I’m anxious to read your justification for the masturbating nun. And your implication that somehow I am excusing the murdering jihadists or trivializing the wickedness of their murder is horribly untrue and unfair. As a good Catholic I oppose the death penalty except in the most extraordinary circumstances. Executions are sins and the executed are victims. Elevating victims into martyrs may allow for a more compelling narrative, but it is intellectually dishonest.

  • Mike, why on earth would I keep trying to talk to you about this when you have thus far either not understood or cannot respond to a single point I have made?

  • Mike Petric: “Executions are sins and the executed are victims.”
    .
    “Only for killing a man shall a man be put to death.”
    .
    Capital punishment is the temporal punishment for capital one homicide; for laying in wait and murdering an innocent man for jealousy, or hatred or lust for his wife and/or property. There can be no Sacrament of Penance without temporal punishment and the firm amendment to sin no more and avoid the near occasion of sin. The executed are brought to Justice on the gallows. As the prophet Samuel hacked Agag into pieces saying: “As your sword has made women childless, so shall your mother be childless.”
    .
    Without the death penalty, the Boston bomber is going enjoy his crime in prison for the rest of his life. For the murderer to enjoy his crime in prison for the rest of his life is injustice. It is the duty of the state to deliver Justice.
    .
    World War II was capital punishment on a large scale. Those Germans killed were supposed to be resisting Hitler and freeing the concentration camp victims, not shooting as they were, at the Allies. There was an underground resistance in France, Italy, Germany, Poland, Carl von Stauffenberg tried to assassinate HItler, people who could think for themselves. ditto “the japs” as they were called.
    .
    War is hell but so is taking on the power of attorney of the condemned and bringing him to Justice.
    .
    Justice is what this post is about. Violation of the sovereign person is a miscarriage of Justice. “piss Christ”, the image of Our Lady covered in elephant dung, the life-sized statue of Jesus Christ in chocolate and the invitation to passersby to “take and eat”. These are mockery not only of my belief but essentially ridicule of the Divine Person and the human person. “You are men sacred to me, for I, the Lord, your God am sacred”. and our tax money paying for the cruel blasphemy and insult to the human person and God. William Donohue responds to the defamation of innocent persons. Real humor subsists in our acknowledgement of our shortcomings. It seems these people were killed for violating free speech.
    .
    There is so much in the Bible to cause “funny”, such as the phrase: “there will not be a dog that pisseth against a wall.” Whenever I see a dog pissething against a wall, I am reminded that things aren’t so bad (and things can get worse).
    .
    The public square and the public tax money belongs to all people and are not to be misused to abuse. When their magazine entered the public square and offended and violated common decency and the person, it had brought about sanction on itself, and it needed to be removed by them or everyone. The terrorists do not represent “everyone”.

  • I agree, Mary, with much of what you have written. As a Catholic I am bound to the Church’s teachings, and Her teaching regarding capital punishment is pretty clear — it should be used only when necessary to protect society. While that rule very much requires a prudential application in each case, in my opinion it would not permit capital punishment for most instances of capital crimes. Current law in the US does not apply such a prudential calculus, but instead the inquiry is chiefly penal in nature. To the extent executions occur that do not satisfy the prudential test taught by the Church they would be objectively sinful. For the record, this is not a teaching that I am especially enthusiastic about. While I think I understand its reasoning, it seems wrong-headed to me for reasons your post suggests. That said, I submit to authoritative Church teaching.
    My penultimate point was simply that in those instances where a convict is executed under circumstances that would not permit such exectution under Church teaching, the convict has been wronged, and he is a victim; but that does not render him a martyr.

  • Elaine Krewer wrote:

    ‘I’ve never cared for Bill Donohue’s approach to combating anti-Catholicism (real or imagined) because it basically boils down to “we can play the PC protected victim class game too”.’

    Indeed. It demeans us and alas, has become all too common in my neck of the woods…

  • Ernst Schreiber wrote:

    “All this rationalization and contextualizing, all this explaining away is just appeasement by another name. . I wish I could remember what Orwell said back in 1940 or 41 about British pacifists being objectively on the side of the Nazis; it applies here.”

    Amen.

  • Mike PetriK wrote:

    “…but Donohue is right in his description of the magazine.”

    Of course he is. But there is a time and a place Maister P. To so indulge himself now, RIGHT now when twelve people have just been murdered, and their friends and families are in shock and mourning is a species of moral masturbation to make the sins of “Charlie Hebdo” pale by comparison! It is at best ill-bred and callous, and at worst a sleekit way of saying that those poor souls somehow got what was coming to them! Christ on the Cross that poor, tortured wee Muslim lassie I quoted above shows more understanding and compassion than Donohue! He might as well have gone the whole hog, got on a plane to Paris and p****d on their corpses!

    Mike Petrik continued:

    “Thinking people…”

    God gie me strength!

    “..should shun and avoid association with such jerks…”

    Are you familiar with Matthew 9:9-13?

    “…rather than lionize them as martyrs to the monument of free expression.”

    The thing is Maister P, in their choice to continue publishing after previous threats and violent attacks that is precisely what they are. Not all martyrs, to whatever cause or faith, lead blameless lives prior to martyrdom.

  • Mike Petric: “— it should be used only when necessary to protect society.” Who defines what is necessary to protect society? My problem is: who defines society? Are the other prisoners not “society”, the warden, the doctors, the contractors? My stand is simply that a truly repentant capital one murderer will expire with grief over his crime. Now, you are telling me that God wishes to keep him alive, as though God must trust him, but that is not in the CCC.
    .
    Actually, I am for dropping every capital one murderer into the Amazon Jungle and if God wants him/her to live, that’s OK with me. I was also considering Devil’s Island. Let them work as hard as we have to.
    .
    Did you see where St. John Paul II’s assassin came to place flowers on St. John’s grave. After the flowers were placed he was immediately deported by Italy.

  • Mike: There is another concept weighing heavily on me. If the murderer murders again, the state becomes an enabler, an accessory before the fact for not ending the murderer’s crime spree. If St. John Paul II’s assassin murdered again, St. John would have been an accomplice. Are we, the people, to be sitting ducks while the state becomes an accomplice?

  • It is surely ludicrous for Bill Donohue to accuse Charlie Hebdo of intolerance, of all things (“But neither should we tolerate the kind of intolerance that provoked this violent reaction.”)
    Charlie Hebdo has never advocated restricting anyone’s freedom of speech – They leave that to the fanatics they ridicule.
    http://tinyurl.com/n8svgq2
    (The hobnail boots are a nice touch)

  • I keep thinking. Dr. Donohue’s response is basically “I told you so.” and then Dr. Donohue goes on to explain his “I told you so” so when anyone gets to heaven he cannot claim that he was not informed. What happened was hideously unfair, but Dr. Donohue warned the victims of the consequences to be faced for their freedom of speech. Will somebody please blame the devil.

  • Mike Petric: “in my opinion it would not permit capital punishment for most instances of capital crimes.”
    .
    You are absolutely right, but I am talking only about, exclusively about, capital one homicide, not homicide two, negligence, accidental death, only about a hate filled individual who plots, plans and executes his neighbor, even a cold-blooded hit-man does not bear the hatred required for capital one murder. I think the cold-blooded hit-man needs capital punishment because his conscience is gone. But, as you say, these cases must be tried on their own facts, each individually. A blanket ban on capital punishment removes self-defense and is double jeopardy for every citizen for the ban gives the capital one murderer license to kill.

  • Michael Paterson-Seymour: The Jews, Catholics and the Muslims were all three indeed slandered by the magazine. To portray the three as equally guilty in the murders is no more just than what the magazine was doing, slandering innocent people because they belonged to that group, guilt by association. A Bill of Attainder is prohibited. It is unconstitutional to punishing family and friends of traitors.

Obamas Speech: Dem Health Care Bill Now, With Or Without GOP

Wednesday, September 9, AD 2009

[Updates at the bottom of this posting as of 3:03am CDT on AD 9-10-2009]

President Obama’s speech covered many topics, lets first layout our President’s plan:

I. Keep the health insurance you have now.

1.  Pre-existing symptoms or disabilities no longer will disqualify anyone from coverage.

2.  No spending caps set by insurance companies.

3.  No drop in coverage in the middle of an illness.

4.  Limit on out of pocket expense.

5.  Minimal requirements of coverage.

II. Public Option & Exchange

1.  When losing your job you have the Public Option if you can’t afford insurance.

2.  Insurance exchange markets will be required for insurance companies to participate in.

3.  Tax credits for small businesses.

4.  In theory this will not lead to a government take over.

Continue reading...

39 Responses to Obamas Speech: Dem Health Care Bill Now, With Or Without GOP

  • For me the oddest statement in the President’s speech was the claim that “I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits – either now or in the future. Period.” I’m not sure this can even by classified as a lie, as lying requires an intent to deceive, and I can’t imagine Obama thought anyone would believe him when he said this (so then why did he say it?)

  • I think President Obama actually believes that statement he said about not a single dime towards our deficits.

    So I’m not sure if he can be accused of saying a lie. But if it does happen, does it qualify as a lie after the fact?

  • This proposal doesn’t come off as “reform.” Rather, it comes off as more of what we currently have: tons of regulations that introduce more cost and curb competition.

  • It’s not clear that Obama could even hold true to his promise for the length of his speech. Nine paragraphs after making his “not one dime . . . Period” pledge, he says that his plan would cost $900 billion, and that “most” of this would be offset by cuts in existing health care programs. Perhaps by most he means $899,999,999,999.91? Or maybe he means his pledge literally. He won’t sign a bill if it adds exactly a dime to the deficit, but if it adds billions that’s okay.

  • For full disclosure, I am not an expert on how the Health Care industry works.

    With that said I do like the first portion of his speech that says pre-existing symptoms or disabilities no longer will disqualify anyone from coverage, no spending caps set by insurance companies will be allowed, coverage won’t be dropped in the middle of an illness, there will be a limit on out of pocket expense, and there will be minimal standards required in basic coverage.

    I’m not sure if this will make insurance costs go up, drive companies out of business, and eventually result in a single payer system over a period of time.

    But if this is possible without any of the above scenarios, I like it!

  • Tito, on another thread I was calling you out, takin it back now.
    Really! If we could fix the pre-existing condition and employer control thing in healthcare, who could argue?

  • Master C,

    I was busy typing up this posting when you left that message.

    I like the portion I outlined, but without the public option.

    If some regulations could be set up for the insurance industry without the public option then that would be ideal!

  • We need this change…YESTERDAY!

    Millions of Americans presently have no health care, others who do, when faced with an illness go bankrupt, and others find out that suddenly they don’t have any healthcare at all and still others are covered but face high costs.

    I’m 52 years old..and my job was outsourced 4 years ago.
    Thankfully I have family but I pay $450.67 per month and my Asthma inhaler costs…$211.00 OUT OF POCKET.

    Others are in worse shape.

    Any Catholic that cannot see the good in this isn’t Catholic!

  • P. Edward Murray,

    I certainly sympathize with the problems that you are facing.

    Though I have to say that just because some of us oppose certain points of President Obama’s speech doesn’t make us not Catholic.

    If you could explain why then we have a starting point, but just simply saying this doesn’t make it so.

    Also you can’t force others to pay for something they don’t want to pay for nor are required to pay for.

  • “Primary school taunting”?

    No, he just told the truth. Would that Palin and FOX NEWS would do the same.

  • Mr. Murray,

    I have no health care. I pray that my health does does fail. I haven’t had a full-time job in nearly a year. I do fear bankruptcy if I experience any health programs.

    That said, anyone who tries to get me health care on the backs of dead babies is not doing me any favors. I’d rather face financial ruin than see one more baby slaughtered.

    In Christ,
    Steve

  • Heather,

    Denying that there are End-of-Life-Decision panels, aka, Death Panels?

  • Steve,

    First, I know quite well where you are..I’ve been out of a job for 4 years…

    I thought I had finally found a good company to work for and was promoted a Team Leader at our Panasonic National Diagnostic Center. So I was part of the management team lowest level.

    One day I came in and learned that my entire office was to be sold. We were. And we were led to believe that we would just move to another location.

    That didn’t happen.

    At one point, we had 75 people working at our facility.

    All the remaining jobs were outsourced to Manila.

    I blame GWB and all Republicans..they didn’t give a care.
    To all of them…outsourcing is just another way of making more profit.

    And that is why I will never vote for another Republican as long as I live.

    The lie and cheat period. They only care about themselves and other rich …very rich people.

    As far as abortion is concerned you needn’t worry because this is what the president said…

    “And one more misunderstanding I want to clear up – under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place.”

    And to anyone else reading…

    We are living in a Depression…currently I have a brother & sister-in-law out of work. I have an Aunt & Uncle..both in their sixties…out of work and they are trying to start business.

    Millions of Americans are in the same boat as Steve and I and if you aren’t yout of work you should be counting your blessings because it isn’t over yet.

    Being unemployed for a long time is very hard but I’m also

  • I’m also caring for my 74 year old mother who has cancer and is still working and is partially disabled with a bad back so I must take her to work and back in a wheelchair.

    This is what George W Bush did.

    I know this is where Jesus wants me to be..to take care of my mother…something that many middle aged Americans face..caring for their elderly parents.

    We need this change and we need the jobs to come back.

    If this doesn’t happen then God help us because there is going to be a heck of a revolution!

    Say the Chaplet of Divine Mercy!

  • Tito…

    Have you ever heard of

    “A living will”?

    Please don’t tell lies.

  • P. Edwards Murray,

    There will be abortion funding in the bill. You know better that the public option will offer coverage for abortion.

    This is your first warning. If you’re unable to keep your emotions in check and call me a lier one more time then you will be banned.

    You know there are End-of-Life Panels, aka, Death Panels, in one of the two congressional bills.

    I can tell you my sob story as well, but I’m not here to score cheap political points.

    If you really believe a revolution will occur if this bill doesn’t pass then you are beyond logic and reason.

    If this bill does go through, one thing is for certain, we’ll have an entirely new executive and legislative branch come 2012. That is change that I can believe in.

  • Personally having witnessed the outrageous statements at my former Parish…St. Ignatius of Antioch Yardley PA..statements made just after the election…that voting

    “The Economy” was wrong and that “Jesus would have something to say to me” I left that Parish in disgust.

    Picking up my mother from her weekly Adoration, I noticed some flyers saying that this health care would include abortion….

    Which it didn’t then and won’t now.

    I’m of the opinion that The American Catholic Church is really split…many proclaim themselves to be Catholic and are more Republican than really Catholic.

    And some are really Catholic.

    I don’t know about you, but I was brought up to believe that being a Christian was more than abortion…

    Did not Jesus say “Feed my Sheep”? Did he not say that if a man has no “cloak” to give him yours? Did he not say to give your money to the poor?

    Do we not sing a song “Whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers, that you do unto me”?

    Yes we sing that song and Pope John Paul II talked about
    “A Consistent Ethic of Life”?

    So remember…

    Your vote is an action and actions speak louder than words.

    Is it better to vote for one who says they are pro life but clearly discounts everything else that Jesus has said?

    For the record, I believe in a “Consistent Ethic of Life” and I am a practicing Catholic and a Democrat.

    One final note…

    When I left St. Ignatius I could hardly believe that any priest or deacon could have said such a thing. Clearly sometimes priests forget that they live by charity.

    The Deacon in question…his other job..is a

  • Tito,

    I will not remain here and will never bother you again.

    Say a Chaplet of Divine Mercy

  • P. Edward Murray,

    You are more than welcome to say your peace, but please say it in charity.

    It seems you are the one struggling with your Catholic identity vs. being a Democrat.

    As for me I am not a Republican nor do I vote a clean GOP ticket.

    I’ve donated all of my money to the local democratic party and have voted for many democrats, yet I vote as a Catholic, not as a republican nor democrat.

    The life of a human being, especially an innocent child, is the utmost important issue.

    If you feel that getting a free bottle of aspirin forcibly paid by someone else is more important than the life of an innocent child, then that is between you and God.

    I’ll put you and your family in my evening prayers.

  • Catholic Anarchist,

    Your disrespectful comments and vicious attack on the writers of this website will not be tolerated.

    It is comments like yours that the American people are fed up with the way you and your ilk demonize those that protest President Obama’s health care bill.

  • “He chastised those that would dare say the Public Option would eventually take over the Health Insurance Industry.”

    A Kool-Aid stand was set up in the lobby for those who have yet to see the light. Name ONE government program that has ever gotten smaller.

    Buehler…BUEHLER…ANYBODY ?

  • “Any Catholic that cannot see the good in [ObamaCare] isn’t Catholic!”

    “I’m of the opinion that The American Catholic Church is really split…many proclaim themselves to be Catholic and are more Republican than really Catholic.”

    “For the record, I believe in a “Consistent Ethic of Life” and I am a practicing Catholic and a Democrat.”

    Taken at face value, these comments add up to saying, essentially, that one must be a Democrat in order to be a “real” Catholic (never mind the Democrat-sponsored legalized murder of all those dead babies).

    “Any Catholic that cannot see the good in [ObamaCare] isn’t Catholic!”

    So, then, unless you support this particular version of health care reform, prepare yourself to be denied the Catholic funeral that that paragon of Catholic virtue Teddy Kennedy received.

    “I’m of the opinion that The American Catholic Church is really split…many proclaim themselves to be Catholic and are more Republican than really Catholic.”

    Mightn’t there be an even greater number that proclaim themselves to be Catholic that are more Democrat than really Catholic? There’s a whole generation of Catholic Democrat politicians, for example, that ignore Church teaching on fundamental issues such as abortion, euthanasia, and marriage. It’s funny: I see very few pro-life Catholics who proclaim themselves members of the Republican Party as readily as this gentleman proclaims himself a Democrat. Tito’s not a Republican. I’m not a Republican. And even those who are self-proclaimed Republicans tend to be willing to vote against the party when it comes to a “pro-choice” candidate (witness Catholics Against Rudy). Sad that we don’t see that same commitment from Catholic Democrats.

    “I don’t know about you, but I was brought up to believe that being a Christian was more than abortion… Did not Jesus say “Feed my Sheep”? Did he not say that if a man has no “cloak” to give him yours? Did he not say to give your money to the poor? … Do we not sing a song “Whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers, that you do unto me”? … For the record, I believe in a “Consistent Ethic of Life” and I am a practicing Catholic and a Democrat.”

    It’s ironic that whevever someone proclaims themselves to have a “consistent ethic of life”, it is almost ALWAYS the unborn who get short shrift, whose right to life is given a lower priority than whatever other policy issues happen to more closely coincide with that person’s own preferences. They proclaim a concern about “the least of these our brothers” without a hint of irony that they’re leaving out of the equation (or at least minimizing) the least of the least of these – the unborn.

    I agree that we should all have a consistent ethic of life. That universal access to health care – in whatever form it is delivered – is part of that consistent ethic. But as long as our culture accepts a legal regime that fails to recognize the inherent humanity in the least of the least of these our brothers, such a consistent ethic of life is impossible. And, quite frankly, a government that provides legal cover for the murder of the innocent is unfit to run anything remotely resembling health care.

    And besides, how dare anyone believe that their other policy priorities somehow take precedence over the very right to experience life that is endowed by the Creator upon the unborn? With apologies to Charles Dickens, it may be, that in the sight of Heaven, the millions of poor children in the womb have a higher priority in seeing the light of day than does someone in having the government pay for their “free” health care. So, yes, let’s have a consistent ethic of life, but let’s get our priorities straight about what that means, and stop using it as a tool for ignoring abortion in favor of a particular party’s big government agenda.

  • “It is comments like yours that the American people are fed up with the way you and your ilk demonize those that protest President Obama’s health care bill.”

    Tito. I know. You’re going to start thinking I’m singling you out. But…the reverse happens just as frequently and just as viciously. And at least on this blog, the latter tends to be quite tolerated.

    Jay,

    I agree. Catholic Democrats really do not live up to their vocation as Catholics. Many are cowards. Many use the “seamless garment” as cover for voting for pro-choice candidates without even resisting pro-abortion legislation while performing some sort of intellectual gymnastics to distract attention from such a reality. But really, we are told that they are really pro-life because they are reducing the number of abortions by expanding access and/or funding to it.

    But…I think concerns that “other issues” — and I’m not talking about everything else on the “progressive” agenda — are unfortunately neglected, or voting for pro-life Republican candidates, which some Catholics imply is mandatory (even you choose to try to opt to not vote for anyone at all over voting for a Democrat), might strike your conscience as endorsing a number of policies that you simply do not agree with and do not believe is good for our country.

    In a sense, there is a sentiment that I don’t totally endorse — but I am very sympathetic to — is that many left-leaning Catholics feel boxed in. It is practically non-negotiable that you support a party that you fundamentally do not agree with and whom we tend to be suspicious about in regard to their commitment to actually stopping the evil of abortion — and I’m not saying the Democrats are the solution. I’m not trying to draw failure of one side to excuse the other. I am merely saying, these concerns — valid or not — usually are dismissed or there is a legitimate sentiment that right-leaning Catholics either totally reject such considerations or really don’t care. Whether that’s true or not is one thing, but it can seem that way. I repeat: it can seem that way. I’m not sure.

    But to the plight of an orthodox pro-life Catholic Democrat, I am very sympathetic. Obviously, I am one. I did not vote for Obama, but if he were pro-life, I probably would have campaigned for him.

  • If Obama were pro-life (and I mean TRULY pro-life, not Harry Reid “pro-life”), I would probably vote for him, just to reward the Democrats for nominating a pro-lifer.

    If the Democrats ever wised up to the fact that being pro-life was actually a political benefit to them, then we could really do something to end abortion in this country, and Democrats would likely become a permanent majority.

  • Eric,

    I know you personally so don’t worry, your intentions are pure and I need someone like you (I have many) to help keep me on the straight and narrow.

    Your comments and critiques of me are appreciated and spiritually humbling.

    🙂

    …and yes, it does go both ways, though for the moment, in my humble opinion, the GOP, conservatives, independents, and moderates are getting more of it than the liberals and democrats.

    In Jesus, Mary, & Joseph,

    Tito

  • Obama spent a rather long time last night composing what I believe will be remembered as the epitaph for ObamaCare. I have never seen a more inept performance by a President addressing a joint session of Congress. He is approaching lame duck status in his first year in office with his party in overwhelming control in both chambers of Congress. In the teeth of an economic and fiscal crisis of vast proportions there is effectively no one directing the ship of state. God help us.

  • Picking up my mother from her weekly Adoration, I noticed some flyers saying that this health care would include abortion….

    Which it didn’t then and won’t now.

    With respect, Mr. Murray, that’s simply not true. It did, and it does, as Michigan Representative (and Democrat) Bart Stupak recognizes.

    http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1918261,00.html

    But you are absolutely right that health care is a human right, and you should have coverage. I just wish the pro-abortion pols would stop jeopardizing the possibility of health care reform with their games.

  • I think there are flaws in Obama’s proposal, I would prefer that any public option only be state- or region-level co-ops, and I’m sceptical of its ability to control healthcare costs as long as most healthcare is fee-for-service. But overall, I think it has a lot of good in it. I wish some pro-life Republicans like Chris Smith would tell Obama that they’d vote for it if it includes the Stupak amendment. With around 20 pro-life Republicans in the house supporting it and the 20 Dems who wrote the letter on abortion and healthcare, that would be enough to pass it and give it some bipartisan credentials, which Obama wants, and it would protect life.

  • You’re right about that, Zak. If the Dem leadership would be willing to maintain the status quo of no federal funding for abortion by including the Stupak amendment, then health care reform would pass with bipartisan support and the blessing of the USCCB.

    I think it telling, however, that the administration that promised to find “common ground” on abortion is not even willing to maintain the Hyde Amendment status quo, despite its being the overwhelming majority view of the American people that tax dollars should not pay for abortions.

  • I think Zak is in the ballpark with the co-ops, but as a Catholic I would rather forget the state/regional level (implies government run) and take it a step further and suggest the the Catholic Church take the lead and reclaim the moral high ground by establish CATHOLIC Co-ops at the diocesan/parish level.

    There are the beginnings of such a move in the diocese of San Antonio TX by the Catholic Medical Association – see:

    http://www.cathmed.org/issues_resources/blog/new_guild_in_san_antonio_forming/

    Imagine a network of Catholic medical clinics around the country (and world) like the Tepeyac Family Center

    http://www.tepeyacfamilycenter.com/

    and Divine Mercy Pharmacy

    http://www.dmcpharm.com/

    Also – Catholic hospitals (like many colleges) need to reclaim their Catholic identity.

  • JB, I like that idea.

  • What these folks who keep talking about a consistent ethic of life don’t seem to get is this very simple concept:

    A consistent ethic of life begins with life.

  • Jb,

    a step further and suggest the the Catholic Church take the lead and reclaim the moral high ground by establish CATHOLIC Co-ops at the diocesan/parish level.

    A fantastic idea. Unfortunately the current regulatory environment (ie. massive government intrusion) makes such an idea very difficult to implement.

  • Matt,
    I don’t know if it would be hard for a diocese to set up a healthcare coop that Catholics could buy into except for government demands to cover certain things. The trouble I see is when the co-op refusedto pay for contraception and gets in trouble with the government like Belmont Abbey College. One fears the government might also eventually mandate that insurance plans participating in its exchanges cover abortion too.

  • Zak,

    agreed, but there’s a lot of other issues in the state level regulations as well regarding non-discrimination and covered procedures, etc.

  • Matt – what came to me as I read your response is to reaffirm what I said about reclaiming the high ground.

    The battle cry of the feminist movement all these years has essentially been “this is MY body” – (sounds vaguely familiar), The regulations (and health care “reform”) have been a steady march towards telling people of faith that “your body has to follow our rules” regarding contraception and abortion – especially when we’re paying the bills.

    Their “solutions” to every problem is always more and more of the same thing that got us into the problem in the first place, and things continue to get worse. It’s like a person that beats their head against the wall every day because it feels so good when they stop.

    I believe that places like the Teyeyac Family Clinic and DM Pharmacy were raised up by God to say to the world “we’re getting off this merry go round”, and the result speak for themselves.

    Many of the Dr’s across the nation that have stopped prescribing contraceptives and referring / performing for abortion have initially seen their practices suffer – only to come roaring back stronger than before.

    To me – the logical place to put these kinds of places is where the people are – in the diocese. That’s how the non-profit Catholic Hospitals got their start – we need to get back to our roots.

    God will do the work if he can just find a “few good men (and women)” to enlist. Now is the time to be bold – not timid. Remember the walls of Jericho !

  • Jay,

    I’m not sure if the absence of abortion would win the bill any new votes. As far as I can tell, people object for various other reasons. But you might be quite right.

    In regard to insurance, I’ve always thought the Knights of Columbus should offer health insurance. I think Catholics would buy it in swarms.

  • In regard to insurance, I’ve always thought the Knights of Columbus should offer health insurance. I think Catholics would buy it in swarms.

    Amen, brother knight.

    Though at this point they are probably effectively barred from it by the fact that you can’t offer health insurance across state lines. If that were removed, and voluntary associations could form pools in the same way as employers, I would think we could see a huge amount of positive change right there.

  • Eric, Darwin… I agree, the KofC seems like an excellent means of offering health insurance. As Darwin aptly noted, they are prevented from doing so by the regulations preventing insurance across state lines. Additionally, removing health insurance coverage as an employment benefit would serve to assist in this endeavor. Voluntary associations with interstate portability… sounds like a winner to me.