Arrested for Preaching About Homosexuality

This, of course, is a fundraising video, but the reality it talks about (no free speech for people critical of homosexuality) is endemic. The situation in the U.S., with our First Amendment, is better in strict legal terms, but bullying, harassment and intimidation from the gay lobby can achieve the same thing here that arrests can in the U.K.

[Update]

The Huffington Post ran a reasonably unbiased article on this incident, but note the level of vitriol directed against not only the street preacher, but also Christianity in general, in the comments.

Bill Maher, Anti-Christian Bigot: More

We have blogged about this fellow before, but he can’t seem to stop spewing out his hatred of Christians.

It’s interesting to compare him to the crackpot “pastor” in Florida who was promising to burn copies of the Qur’an. This fellow got way too much publicity out of it (any nobody can suggest something outrageous and get world-wide media attention, apparently) but he also drew universal condemnation.

Yet Maher continues to be a rather mainstream figure. While most people in the Mainstream Media and among liberal elites don’t hate Christians the way Maher does, they just don’t think his tirades deserve condemnation.

Obama White House Demands Removal of Christian Symbol at Georgetown

From CNS news:

Georgetown University says it covered over the monogram “IHS” — symbolizing the name of Jesus Christ — because it was inscribed on a pediment on the stage where President Obama spoke at the university on Tuesday and the White House had asked Georgetown to cover up all signs and symbols there.

As of Wednesday afternoon, the “IHS” monogram that had previously adorned the stage at Georgetown’s Gaston Hall was still covered up--when the pediment where it had appeared was photographed by CNSNews.com.

President Obama is greeted by Georgetown University President John J. DeGioia as he arrives to deliver remarks on the economy, April 14, 2009, at Georgetown University. Georgetown had covered the symbol “IHS” on the pediment above and behind the two men. “In coordinating the logistical arrangements for yesterday’s event, Georgetown honored the White House staff’s request to cover all of the Georgetown University signage and symbols behind Gaston Hall stage,” Julie Green Bataille, associate vice president for communications at Georgetown, told CNSNews.com.

The letters “IHS” are something most media don’t seem to understand.

In fact, it’s based on a vision supposedly seen by Roman emperor Constantine, with IHS standing for in hoc signo [vinces] -- “in this sign conquer.” The sign being the cross.

Many Christians think it means “in His service.” Either way, it’s most certainly a Christian symbol.

Either way, something that Barack Obama is uncomfortable with.

What is most shocking is that Georgetown would submit to a demand like this, agreeing — for publicity or favor with liberals — to conceal a symbol of its own identity.

Still More Discrimination Against Christians on a College Campus

From the Christian Post:

A Christian fellowship group that has been on the Wright State University campus for over 30 years was denied registration as a student group this year for its faith-based policies.

Representatives of Campus Bible Fellowship, which ministers to students at secular colleges, reported that they were turned down by school officials earlier this year when they tried to re-register the group.

The Office of Student Activities at the Ohio-based university named two reasons for the denial, according to CBF representatives.

First, CBF refused to adopt university-mandated nondiscrimination language in its membership requirements that would have forced the group to nix a requirement that voting members maintain religious and behavioral standards.

Second, Wright State objected to the requirement in CBF’s constitution that voting members “accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior” and subscribe to the group’s articles of faith.

The group, which primarily emphasizes Bible study, has not been able to meet on the campus since and has turned to a civil liberties group for help.

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), which defends First Amendment rights – including religious liberty – on college campuses, has written a letter to university’s president, calling for an immediate reversal of the ban on the Wright State CBF chapter.

“A Christian group has the right to be Christian, a Jewish group has the right to be Jewish, and a Muslim group has the right to be Muslim,” said FIRE President Greg Lukianoff.

“Courts have affirmed this principle time and time again,” he added. “It is shocking that in a free society, public universities like Wright State still don’t seem to understand or respect this crucial component of religious liberty.”

The Feb. 12 letter from FIRE to Wright State President David R. Hopkins cited a federal legal precedent setting forth the principle that “if Wright State is to allow expressive organizations to exist on its campus at all, it must allow religious organizations to exist, to define their missions, [and] to select their own members.”

According to FIRE, the university’s attorney Gwen Mattison had informed a FIRE representative over the phone that the ban would be lifted for the remainder of the academic year. However, when FIRE wrote in an e-mail, attempting to confirm the details of the phone conversation, Mattison dismissed the details as “incorrect.”

The decision to ban CBF, said FIRE, goes against Wright State recognition procedures.

“It is understood that some student organizations may be created for the purpose of deepening the religious faith of students within the context of a denominational or interdenominational grouping, and that some student organizations may be created for the purpose of perpetuating a national cultural tradition,” states a Student Handbook on student activities.

“Where these purposes are clearly stated in the constitution or bylaws of a student organization and appear to be reasonable, a student organization may be granted recognition through customary procedures as an exception to this policy,” the handbook reads.

More here.

It’s hard to rationalize this as the result of misguided bureaucrats making some blunder. Rather, there has to be an active animus against Christians here.

That’s extremely common among the college bureaucrats that handle “student affairs” and such. They see their job as promoting a politically correct agenda, and Christians (if they are really Christians) can’t conform to the demands of political correctness.

WKLH and Bill Maher

This afternoon, the management of WKLH considered the issue of anti-Christian bigot Bill Maher, whom the station has been sponsoring in Milwaukee.

We just talked to Station Manager Tom Joerres.

The verdict? Sort of a non-verdict, actually. Joerres stated that all of the station’s contractual obligations to Maher’s promoters have been satisified, and the issue is now moot. There is nothing “left to be done,” he said. He said it was “a moot point” and “behind us.”

He expressed surprise that the issue broke this week, rather than last week. We explained that some things slip under the radar until somebody notices them. In this case, the “somebodies” were Sly Sylvester in Madison, and the Marquette Warrior in Milwaukee.

We asked him whether the station is still giving away Maher tickets, and he said he believed those tickets are all gone.

We asked him whether the promo blurb for Maher is still on the station website, and he wasn’t entirely sure.

In reality, the blurb on the event is now gone from both the WKLH “Concerts” page, and the “Events” page.

Joerres said that, had the station known about the hateful comments of Maher, those comments “would have given us pause,” and “we would have looked at it differently.” Some of Maher’s most incendiary comments, attacking the Pope as someone who “used to be a Nazi” and the Catholic Church as a “child abusing religious cult” happened after WKLH signed on to the sponsorship.

Joerres added that WKLH is not “an AM station that seeks controversy.”

Good point. Anybody has a right to bring into Milwaukee any speaker they want. But any business firm that tries to be “mainstream” and appeal to a wide audience would be well advised to avoid supporting or endorsing people like Maher.

Of course, if the speaker engaged in vitrolic attacks on blacks or homosexuals, the local leftists would immediately see this point.

But where Christians are attacked, they see it differently.

Sponsoring an Anti-Christian Bigot: WKLH Responds

An e-mail from WKLH:

Hi John,

Thank you for contacting us regarding the Bill Maher show. I’ll call you shortly, but first a little background about our promotional involvement.

Our agreement with Pabst/Riverside was a term agreement whereby we partnered to promote several shows within a calendar window.

We are involved in actual artist booking & recommendation ONLY for those shows that benefit station-specific events or charities such as our Christmas for Kids benefit or Children’s Hospital of Wisconsin fundraisers.

At the time of the arrangement Mr. Maher had not made his insensitive remarks, although we will not hide behind that circumstance as an excuse.

The vast majority of shows we have promoted have been well received and non-controversial, including the many that have supported our Dave & Carole Miracle Marathon for Children’s Hospital of Wisconsin and Christmas for Kids.

Mr. Maher’s comments have obviously offended many people. While we usually let the market dictate the success or failure of a given show, we will reconsider our promotional involvement with this show.

Thank you for sharing your comments.

Bob Bellini
Program Director
96.5 WKLH Milwaukee

We talked to Bellini after receiving this e-mail, and the people who run WKLH will be meeting later today to decide what to do about this situation.

Bellini made it clear that he is no fan of Maher.

WKLH could simply “pull its sponsorship” of Maher, although Bellini pointed out that “the horse is out of the barn” in some ways. Promotional materials already printed can’t be unprinted.

But he conceded that WKLH could, if it wanted, stop giving away tickets to the Maher performance and take the promotional blurb off its website.

Such actions, while not large in the entire scope of things, would at least send the symbolic message that WKLH does not condone or support Maher’s anti-Christian bigotry.

A call to 414-978-9000, or an e-mail to Tjoerres@mkeradiogrp.com (station manager Tom Joerres) with a civil statement about how the station should distance itself from this kind of bigotry would be in order.

We can’t imagine WKLH promoting or supporting a comedian who was famous for attacking blacks or gays. Attacking Christians should be equally embarrassing to WKLH.

American Pulling Sponsorship From Bill Maher Performance

We just talked to Wyn Becker, top Public Relations guy at American TV, and he informs us that American TV will be pulling its sponsorship of the controversial Bill Maher concert in Milwaukee.

Maher, who quite openly hates Christians, was sponsored by American TV, WKLH Radio, and the Shepherd Express in what appears to have been a package deal to sponsor acts at certain venues -- the Riverside and Pabst theaters in Milwaukee in this case.

The American logo will not be seen on ads for the comedian, on the web page promoting his performance or any signage connected to the concert.

Becker mentioned that American has been bombarded with calls on this issue today.

Becker admitted that he had seen the list of comedians slated to perform. “I was aware . . . they sent it to me ahead of time” he told us. And further, “they sent the list over.” Becker further said “Did it slip by me? I looked it over and it seemed ok.” It appeared that Becker recognized Maher as a well-known name, but it didn’t “click” that he had made a long series of bigoted comments about Christians.

Becker stressed that, in the entire scope of American TV public relations, the comedians series at the Riverside and Pabst theaters “isn’t necessarily a huge project.” So it’s not as though anybody at American’s corporate headquarters in Madison sat down and hashed over the list of performers.

Becker made it clear that the Maher performance is part of a package of comedy shows -- perhaps 15 per year -- that American most certainly does want to support. “We sponsor the Pabst and the Riverside,” he said, describing them as “historic old venues.”

Indeed, both venues have been revitalized in recent years, and Becker seemed proud of that fact and of the comedy series that has featured acts such as “Second City.” In any given year, American may not know all the acts that will be booked when it promises support before the season starts.

Although everybody -- including American and the management of the Riverside/Pabst operation -- ought to be more careful about involving sponsoring corporations in promotions that will prove embarrassing, no deliberate decision to do something known to offend Christians was made.

It appears that American has done everything it can, at this point, to distance itself from this inflammatory and intolerant comedian.

[Update]

Charlie Sykes has an update on this, with an e-mail from Wyn Becker that we had not seen before, saying essentially the same thing he said in his interview with us.

Sponsoring an Anti-Christian Bigot: American TV Responds

A message from American TV about their sponsorship of “comedian” Bill Maher in Milwaukee:

John-

We regret if our advertising co-sponsorship participation for the upcoming Bill Maher concert has offended you or your “readers.” However, I would like to explain our involvement. We did not directly and individually select Mr. Maher’s concert to sponsor and have no direct connection with the production or promotion of this show. American does have partnerships with WKLH Radio with a number of events they co-sponsor at certain venues around Milwaukee including many comedy shows at the Riverside/Pabst Theaters.

As an example, we are also tied to the Dave & Carole Comedypalooza which is a benefit for Milwaukee’s Children Hospital. Bill Maher’s appearance is part of a yearlong series of comedy concerts which we co-sponsor with The Riverside and WKLH.

You are correct, Mr. Maher is a very opinionated political/social humorist and we may not agree with or necessarily condone the content of his material. Nor would we want to defend his style of humor, since the direction his topics take in his act are very subjective. Our intent was to advertise with a well respected concert venue and radio station which bring in many popular comedy performances throughout the year. This is somewhat similar to us having our television commercials run on a popular show during the year and then have that show deal with a rather controversial topic in a given week, a topic that many people might take offense too.

Mr. McAdams, I know this may not change the way you feel and I respect your opinion, but I felt that we owed you a further explanation since you took the time to voice your concerns. If you have any additional questions or concerns, please feel free to let me know.

Respectfully,

Stephen DeShong
Corporate Consumer Relations

Anti-Christian Bigot in Milwaukee: More

Just a few hours ago, we blogged on the fact that Bill Maher will be coming to Milwaukee on July 24th at the Riverside Theater.

So what’s wrong with that?

In the first place he’s an anti-Christian and generally anti-religious bigot.

But he has First Amendment rights just like everybody else. (Those rights, we note, are not abridged if people demonstrate against him.)

The kicker is: American TV, the local furniture and electronics store is sponsoring him!

They want to sell stuff to Christians -- who after all are the overwhelming majority of the population in Wisconsin. So why are they supporting him?

From Badger Blogger, a suggestion:

Here’s my recommendation for anyone reading this who is truly offended that American would sponsor Maher:

On Monday, call the American TV corporate offices at (608) 271-1000 and ask to speak with company President Doug Ruehl. (Sounds like: “Rule”)

You will be directed to Doug Ruehl’s public relations assistant, who will explain to you that Mr. Ruehl does not accept direct phone calls, but they will offer to arrange a return call to you from Mr. Ruehl.

Explain to him that you are a previous customer, and that you are calling to express your displeasure over American TV’s sponsorship of the Maher appearance, and that you fear that this will prevent you from doing business with American TV and Appliance stores in the future.

A poster at Badger Blogger also pointed out that WKLH Radio is also co-sponsoring Maher. In fact, the performance is advertised on the WKLH website.

They too appear not to mind insulting Christians -- and Muslims too.

The third sponsor is the Shepherd Express. Their core readership is about where Maher is, so it’s no surprise.

Anti-Christian Bigot, Bill Maher, Sponsored in Milwaukee by American TV

One does learn interesting things by reading the Shepherd Express. The interesting thing, when I picked up a copy today, was that American TV is sponsoring the appearance of Bill Maher in Milwaukee.

Maher is famous for, among other things, his hatred of Christians.

Maher has said that Christians are “part of a dress-up cult that hates sex and worships magic.”

He facetiously urged that Americans convert to Islam because “We’re a nation enthralled to religious fanatics anyway. Does it really matter which fanatics we’re enthralled to? They’re both filled with moral pieties and codes of conduct nobody follows anyway.”

Maher said the Pope a “used to be a Nazi” and the Catholic church is a “child abusing religious cult.”

And the quotes go on and on:

We are a nation that is unenlightened because of religion . . . I think that religion stops people from thinking. I think it justifies crazies. I think that flying planes in a building was a faith-based initiative. I think religion is a neurological disorder. If you look at it logically, it’s something that was drilled into your head when you were a small child.

Of course, believing what was “drilled into your head when you were a small child” may be better than beliefs you embraced as a teenager because living by a Christian moral code turned out to be rather inconvenient.

But the key point is: Maher is a bigot.

We called a local American TV store and asked for the manager, to see whether we could confirm this (was this some sort of wild advertising error by the Shepherd Express? The American logo appears in two different ads in the paper, one on page 3 and the other on page 9).

The manager said he couldn’t confirm it because he didn’t know who Bill Maher is. He also said he didn’t know what the Shepherd Express is.

We asked for the number of a “corporate flack” and he insisted he did not know what a “flack” is. Corporate headquarters in Madison said that no flacks will be in until Monday.

Maher’s intolerant tirades against religion far exceed anything Don Imus said about the Rutgers Women’s basketball team. Corporate America distanced itself from Imus.

Is it OK to attack Christians? And while we are at it, Muslims too?

In the past, we have bought a few things from American. No more.

A Christian Soldier At War -- And Anti-Christian Bigotry

Marquette alumnus and future Jesuit priest William Blazek wrote a Veterans Day piece for the Washington Post/Newsweek website, just published today.

Among his observations:

One thing that has always struck this veteran about those who serve our nation in the armed forces is the incredible generosity with which they care for each other, the incredible generosity with which they love one another. They do this in sharing meals, in giving burned-out comrades time to catch a bit of sleep, and in simple things like cups of coffee. Although I could not see it as clearly then, God was very present to us in such simple gestures during the First Gulf War. Now that I am a bit more practiced in looking for signs of Him, it is not too hard to figure out. To take care of someone is to love that person, and God is love. Therefore, we can find God’s love in our service members’ care for each other.

A nice sentiment, and typical of American soldiers today as in the past.

But the essay, unfortunately, opened the floodgates for anti-Christian bigotry in the comments section following the article.

Among the typical statements:

Why do Christians call any positive emotion love? It cheapens the word.

What you have here is the concept known as ‘comitatus’. It’s group identity, being a part of a warrior band. Comradeship.

Talk about reaching for the same old towel.

Everything you describe here was done in much the same way by successful warrior bands from time immemorial. The Vikings just didn’t see it as evidence of the presence of Wotan.

And then:

God is very present to us in such simple gestures. . . To take care of someone is to love that person, and God is love. Therefore, we can find God’s love in gays’ care for each other.

I’m not saying all service people are gay but what I am pointing out is that some people who find God in simple gestures of those they approve of somehow can’t find God in the same gestures of those they condemn.

It’s not clear Blazek would disagree with this. It seems this poster can’t accept a Christian sentiment without working homosexuality into the discussion.

And pray tell, didn’t your God have something to say about killing? Oh, yes, I know. You conveniently forgot all those teachings about “love thy neighbor” and “turn the other cheek” and stuff that Jesus said about peace. If you find God in a cup of coffee and can’t figure out that a battlefield is not a tribute to Him or anyone else, then you don’t understand squat.

And then:

This said, to those Wiccan or other pagan soldiers who still serve today, I wish you the best. Stand like the stones, burn like the fires, shout with the wind, and fill your spaces and roles confidently and fully like water. Wherever you may fall, the earth mother waits to embrace you. You are not alone.

And then:

What’s God got to do with anything? There’s no God, or if there is a God, there’s no evidence of his existence in a combat zone.

Do us all a favor will you? Keep God out of a discussion of what goes on in a combat zone. Soldiers help each other out for partly altruistic and partly for selfish reasons.

What keeps men going is comradeship, not God.

That pietistic hogwash your put out has no place in any serious discussion of the business of war.

And further:

Oh, yes!

War is the ultimate expression of love!

Love thy neighbor by blowing his head off! Yes, war is a divine virtue!

Hallelujah and let’s kill in the name of Jesus.

And then:

Regarding Anne . . . I think she is tired of the trail of death that is associated with Christianity. (Before you get your panties in a twist, read a history book or two and you’ll see why the rest of the world is sick of you Christians.)

Most likely, she used small words that Christians can understand.

Of course, she could have explained how the metaphysics and epistemology of a dualisism of Christianity is constantly out of synchronization with its axiology, but she didn’t want to talk over your heads.

Besides, it’s fun to watch you Christians tweak when anybody challenges your beliefs.

Have a nice day.

And then:

2 studies should be done: The Use of Religion for Power and The Use of Power for Money. If you ask: “Is God on the Battlefield?” The answer should be: “No, people are on the battlefield and they were put there by other people for reasons they may not (1) know or (2) agree with.”

Getting people to risk their lives for an abstraction (national identity) requires Demonizing the other side - be they fighters or innocent bystanders. Hence, the illogic - if they are devils, god must be on our side.

From all I have heard of Jesus this was not the sort of logic he engaged in or practiced.

And then:

When (some) Christians want to justify warfare, they always quote Jesus overturning the tables of the moneychangers. Is overturning tables equivalent to shooting people, maiming them, dropping bombs on them? Isn’t there a distinction between violence towards inanimate objects and violence against human beings? Presumably God could have nuked the lot of them to prevent the crucifixion, but he didn’t. I wonder why not?

And then:

You got Bush living down to his own myth of the Antichrist cause that’s the only place his cokehead self can find in the universe... And you have people parroting everything that crosses his fratboy mind, why?

Cause that’s what they’re *told.*

And they know nothing else.

And then:

This is a vile attempt to somehow suggest that God, whatever your theistic bias, is somehow present on the battlefield ------ perhaps in that cup of java. Or, maybe he’s in the next IED.

Tell me, doc: Is it the same God that allowed my friend to blown to bits in front of me ------ while sparing my sorry, sinful a$$? Or, is it the God that high school basketball teams each pray to?

While we’re at it, how does this prayer thing work? If enough people pray about the same thing does God finally take notice ------ as if HE says: “Oh for Christ’s sake, alright already! I’ll save the dying child, the cancer-ridden pregnant mom, and I’ll let your team beat the other guys.”

Exactly what part about “Thou shalt not kill” don’t you fundamentalists get?

Do me a favor ----- don’t pray for me.

It keeps going:

As for the Chaplain, here, well... he thinks it’s special ‘God’ is in a cup of coffee if people are sufficiently-stressed-out.

I don’t get why it’s a big deal, really. I been under siege in America, and, senses get sharp, but ‘God,’ (well, Goddess) was in that coffee in the first place.

Not like I never spent a long night waiting for some Christians to sober up and act on their righteous threats.

Try having a break-action .410 between yourself and a whole lot of Fundie gun enthusiasts that are told you and everyone you love are Satanic agents.

And then:

And I swear to the Gods, Captain, If I could move, instead of being on the Internet all these days, I’d be over there. Not cause I have any faith in the ‘faith-based policy,’ but cause I don’t trust you Christians with guns, never mind in someone else’s country.

And then:

William Blazek sadly reveals the sentimentality mistaken as ‘religious’. A sunset, the fact that someone smiles at you, perhaps getting a parking space in the mall when you’re pressed for time. These become ‘signs’ to the believer. Small ‘favors’ the Catholics would say.

Unfortunately, if the believer is so moved and so attentive to Godliness in life as emotional neediness, much of reality in all its harshness, venality, and violence go unnoticed and unaddressed. It is this immaturity to face life as it is and to face themselves as they are that makes religion and the religious a target of ridicule for those who cannot in honesty agree with the perceptions and conclusions they offer.

And then:

Except Jesus (as) wasn’t a soldier for a world empire occupying and interfering in foreign lands to satisfy corporate greed and thirst for world domination. You gave a scruffy GI Joe some love. But what about the principle of your mission?

Save the platitudes for when you are just a regular person helping another regular person. You were on a mission to kill people so your leaders could get access to 100s of billions in Kuwaiti wealth and a permanent strategic foothold in the Arabian Peninsula like empires have tried to do for eons.

Repent to God for the evils which you have engaged in.

And then:

The “seeing” of God in these experiences is really the act of interpreting what actually happened (meaning, sharing, bonding) within the context of a preexisting dogmatic belief structure. To me, that actually corrupts and pollutes the experience since it is no longer seen for what it is. Instead, it is exploited in the service of superstition.

It keeps going:

People of faith see Jesus and Mary in rust stained highway underpasses, potato chips, grilled cheese sandwiches, and trees that get spared by the California wildfires.

Many of these comments don’t, in fact, begin to address what Blazek wrote.

Some semi-reasonable posters, for example, pointed out that battlefield camaraderie may exist among non-Christians -- like atheists or “pagans” (whatever that means these days). There is no reason to think that Blazek would disagree.

Rather, people who have a deep-seated hatred of Christianity spew forth their grudges.

Bill Moyers Attacks Karl Rove as an Agnostic

An ill-tempered partisan rant from Bill Moyers is no surprise.

But what is interesting about this one, from a forthcoming PBS special, is that he attacks Karl Rove for being (supposedly) an agnostic.

One would think that liberals would be tolerant of agnostics, but they aren’t tolerant of Karl Rove.

According to Moyers, “you have to wonder how those people on the Christian right feel discovering they were used for partisan reasons by a skeptic, a secular manipulator.”

Of course, Moyers, like liberals generally, believes that Christian conservatives are stupid people who could not make a rational vote choice, which is why Rove was able to “manipulate” them.

Yet somehow he “manipulated” them into voting for a candidate (George Bush) who shared their policy preferences about things like abortion, the homosexual agenda and taking “under God” out of the Pledge of Allegiance.

Rove may or may not be an agnostic, but Moyer’s argument is a singularly stupid one.

Rove did not sell himself as a devout Christian. He sold George Bush as a Christian, and as somebody who agreed with Christians on key social issues.

No misrepresentation was required.

Had Rove believed that Christianity is evil, then his selling Bush to Christians as a Christian candidate would be immoral. But there is no evidence Rove believes that Christianity is evil. Indeed, he has been quoted as saying he does not have the “gift of faith.”

Not exactly the words of somebody who thinks Christianity is an evil delusion.

We frankly would prefer an atheist president who agrees with us on key issues to a nominal Christian whose worldview is that of the secular left. And most real Christians we know (“real” defined as taking the Bible more seriously than the editorial page of the New York Times) agree with us.

But Moyers believes that conservative Christians are ignorant hicks, and voted for Bush in the belief that everybody with any connection whatsoever to the Bush White House must be a devout believer.

Of course, Christians would be ignorant hicks if they voted for people who think like Bill Moyers.

Amanda Marcotte: Unrepentant Anti-Christian Bigot

From Salon.com, some insight into the worldview of Amanda Marcotte, the Catholic-hating blogger who ended up resigning from (or was fired from) the John Edwards campaign.

(You will have to click through an advertisement to see the entire article.)

Some key passages:

What I also failed to understand was how much [Melissa] McEwan and I would stick out. I was aware that I didn’t exactly fit the image people have of bloggers who join campaigns -- the stereotype being 30-something nerdy young white men who wear khakis and obsess over crafting their Act Blue lists. I wasn’t aware that not fitting the image would attract so much negative attention. In fact, I mostly saw this all as a baby step in the direction of diversity, since McEwan and I differed from the stereotype mostly by being female and by being outspoken feminists.

[. . .]

The right-wing noise machine’s favorite trick, possibly its only trick, is to select a target and start making a fuss, hoping that by creating the appearance of smoke, just enough people will be fooled into thinking there’s a fire. Unfortunately, it works.

[. . .]

Looking back, the detail that astonishes me the most is the sheer amount of ink, air time, and energy devoted to keeping this phony scandal going until McEwan and I felt we had to resign. One question that’s hard to avoid is how much of the venom had to do with the fact that McEwan and I were young women entering into a field (Internet communications) that’s viewed as almost monolithically masculine.

[. . .]

Regardless of its motive, the result of the smear campaign was to send a loud, clear signal to young feminist women. It tells them that campaigning for Democratic candidates, and particularly doing so in positions that would help the candidate connect with young feminist communities like the one that thrives in the blogosphere, is a scary, risky prospect.

[. . .]

Whether or not it was the intention of the right-wing noise machine to throw more obstacles in the way of Democrats who want to play to their pro-choice, pro-gay rights feminist constituents -- it’s also plausible that the right-wing noise machine was working on pure misogynist emotion -- the episode has had a chilling effect on the future of Democratic outreach to feminist communities, particularly the younger ones that flock to computers for political information as earlier generations flocked to television sets and newspapers.

[. . .]

In response to what happened to Melissa and me, Garance Franke-Ruta has written a post on the American Prospect’s Tapped blog wagging her finger at liberal bloggers and warning us that unless we are willing to ape the language and habits of the D.C. insider crowd, we can expect never to be allowed through the gates. She probably has a point that bloggers can expect this sort of pushback from the establishment. Blogs are popular because they provide space for everyday citizens to engage in politics, in the language and manner that is comfortable for us, if not for the establishment. To my mind, however, it would be a terrible thing if bloggers did heed the advice to mind our manners and ape our betters if we want in, since this is supposed to be a democratic system that respects the right of everyday, common people to participate in politics. While there’s a chance that the crusade to separate McEwan and me from the Edwards campaign was just a singular happening, the possibility lingers that this was just the first sign that the established media and political circles will not be letting the blog-writing rabble into the circle without a fight.

Readers unfamiliar with the things Marcotte actually wrote on here blog should look at the quick summary here.

Marcotte’s apologia raises the question: is there anything particular about her hatred of Christians (particularly Catholics), or is it simply a distilled version of rather conventional feminist doctrine?

Having acted irresponsibly, she can’t concede that she did anything wrong.

Rather, she plays the gender card and claims it’s just those evil “misogynist” attitudes (translation: any opinions that feminists don’t like) that did her in.

Her writing is a window into a world where there are no legitimate differences of opinion, only “progressive” attitudes versus “misogynist” and “homophobic” and “reactionary” forces.

It’s a world were it is acceptable -- indeed good -- to hate those on the other side of the political issues one cares about.

Unfortunately, a lot of college students won’t need that window, because those attitudes are what they have imposed on them every day.

Christian-Bashing Democrats

From Opinion Journal, some observations on the bigoted anti-Christian rhetoric that two of the bloggers in the John Edwards campaign spewed forth, and the broader reality of the Democratic Party.

Heavens, it’s getting crowded in the pews these days--at least with Democratic presidential candidates. Here is Sen. Barack Obama in California’s Saddleback pulpit at the invitation of mega-selling pastor Rick Warren. There is Sen. Hillary Clinton with downcast eyes in Newsweek, praying before the cameras in New York’s Riverside Church. And there preaches John Edwards, also in Riverside Church, weaving his personal faith into everything from AIDS to the minimum wage. Clearly the push is on to show that, for now anyway, the Democratic hopefuls are just plain folks in the religion department.

All the more reason to plumb the curious episode of Amanda Marcotte, that blogger for the Edwards campaign who resigned on Monday and was followed out the door Tuesday by another technical consultant, Melissa McEwan. Both quit thanks to circulation by conservatives of some of these former staffers’ Internet musings. That is to say, in Ms. Marcotte’s case especially: scatological Catholic-baiting rants about “theocracy” marked by leering references to the pope and liberal use of the F-word.

So far, so unremarkable. Just being a bilious feminist with a potty mouth doesn’t much distinguish one in the blogosphere these days. What does matter is something else: We have here a Rosencrantz and Guildenstern moment, in which the fate of bit players becomes emblematic of a larger drama.

For what the blogger tempest really illuminates is a fact that could come to haunt the Democrats as they vie for national office: namely, that their past few wilderness years have also been boom years for the church-loathing liberal/left punditry. As a result, anti-Christian invective now graces (or disgraces) many of the books, magazines, Web sites and blogs to which liberals, including the Democratic elite, habitually look for ideas. One motto of this cottage industry is that the most serious threat to the American republic can be found in, no, not those religious fundamentalists, the ones that first leap to mind after 9/11; but, incredibly, certain other believers--our nation’s Christians.

The cover of Damon Linker’s 2006 “Theocons: Secular America Under Siege,” for example, declares: “For the past three decades, a few determined men have worked to inject their radical religious ideas into the nation’s politics. This is the story of how they succeeded.” Again, he is not talking about al Qaeda. Other books in a similar vein include Michelle Goldberg’s “Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism,” praised on its cover by Katha Pollitt for exposing “the ongoing takeover of our country by right-wing Christians.” There is Kevin Phillips’s “American Theocracy,” which identifies in its subtitle “radical religion” as a “peril” facing the nation. Enter also Randall Balmer’s “Thy Kingdom Come: An Evangelical’s Lament,” which opens with the unfortunate metaphorical notion that evangelical faith has been “hijacked by radical zealots” and closes with a vow about “taking America back.”

To repeat, this apocalyptic rhetoric is not being heaped on, say, bomb-toting Islamists but on your churchgoing neighbors next door. Some authors even argue that those neighbors and Islamic “fundamentalists” are joined at the hip. Mel White’s “Religion Gone Bad: The Hidden Dangers of the Christian Right” is one; he warns that Christians want to “forcibly” take back the country.

Not to be outdone is the recent tome “American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America,” by New York Times reporter Chris Hedges. It delivers more of the same, studded with that tonier F-word, “fascism.” Yet despite the book’s conflation of prayer groups and jackboots, Publisher’s Weekly awarded “American Fascists” a starred review and praised its attentiveness to a supposedly “serious and growing threat to the very concept and practice of an open society.”

Of course, whatever has been hurled against Christians in books and magazines has been positively restrained by the standards of the blogosphere. Like Ms. Marcotte’s more embellished arias, a lot of blog commentary cannot be printed in a family newspaper.

Sophisticates and secularists have always titillated themselves by despising the Bible Belt. But professional Christian-bashers have never been as “embedded” in the liberal mainstream as they are today. And therein lies a problem for Democrats. More Amanda Marcottes are not what the party needs as it scrambles to re-establish its religious bona fides with wary red-staters. No wonder so many Democratic candidates are in church. Now they really have something to pray about.

The author of this piece, Mary Eberstadt, politely fails to be explicit about the vitriol that Marcotte (and McEwan) posted.

But just to give a taste of the vile stuff she posted, here is a sample.

Q: What if Mary had taken Plan B after the Lord filled her with his hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit?

A: You’d have to justify your misogyny with another ancient mythology.

And via Sykes Writes, Michelle Malkin does a dramatic reading of Marcotte’s rants.

People like Edwards and Hillary and Obama may not, in their hearts of hearts, be anti-Christian bigots. But they are tolerant of anti-Christian bigotry. They will accept from their supporters and campaign operatives nasty rhetoric that they would never accept if directed toward blacks or homosexuals.

A lot of Democratic operatives and pundits claim that being a Christian and voting Democratic are perfectly consistent; that any notion that the Democrats are anti-Christian is some kind of misperception.

But it’s not a misperception. The Democratic party is the party of those who hate Christians -- and those who will tolerate hatred toward Christians.