Will Liberal Blogs Get the Real Point of the Edwards Blogger Flap?

Whether or not you think that Amanda said offensive things is besides the point. The issue is whether bigots like Donohue dictate the contours of our political discourse.

"The issue is whether bigots like Donohue dictate the contours of our political discourse."

I think you have an error here --- the real bigots in this story are the two bloggers!! It's not that they disagreed, but that their rants were vulgar and full of hate. If you can't see that, then you don't know the definition of "bigot".

Stoller is right. I have a question for the Faithful Progressive. When is the last time you were on O'Reilly, Hannity or even shows like Wolf Blitzer's on CNN? When was the last time you were on EWTN with Raymond Arroyo? Donohue is on all the time. That is what Stoller means when he says people like Donohue are able to set the agenda. How often are real Progressives on any of the talking head TV shows? Do you know who the people on the board of the Catholic League are? The problem is that you see a different problem as compared to most of the rest of the left blogosphere. Most will agree that Marcotte was wrong. The problem is that it was someone like Donohue leading the charge against her. Why does the MSM take a fraud and phony Catholic like Donohue seriously?

I forgot to ask one question. If we should pay attention to Donohue no matter what he says, then why doesn't that same standard apply to the left? Why is the media so quick to pick up on claims by bigots like Donohue? Doesn't that say something bad about the media? I just thought of a great example. When is the last time the media took a charge by Al Sharpton seriously? He has ethical baggage just like Donohue, but any claim that Sharpton makes is automatically dismissed.

On the day that John Edwards seems to have finally resolved his flap over religion and politics, Gov. Romney is in hot water for launching his campaign at the estate of the notorious anti-Semite, Henry Ford. We have been consistent in deploring religious intolerance by both the right and left--and we anxiously await the outraged posts on Romney's faux pas from the right wing blogs. As the articles below attest, this is a serious issue (Hitler honored Ford) and much more than tit for tat. It is a shockingly insensitive choice by Gov. Romney.

Marcotte has rsigned.

For what it's worth, this is what we had suggested in our very first post on this topic. Marcotte's posts were far more offensive than those of Ms. McEwan. Bill Donohue doesn't speak for Catholics, and Amanda Marcotte doesn't speak for liberals. Most liberals are tolerant (see our primer: How to talk about religion) decent and respectful people who want a civilized and thoughtful debate on the issues. This is not a question of Swiftboating, as some have suggested--the charges against John Kerry were false. No one has ever disputed that Marcotte wrote the posts in question. It doesn't matter that the charges came from Donahue--at some point, they would have been used in an attack ad against Sen. Edwards. I have spent two years writing this blog and trying to do everything in my power to see that the 2008 election is not like the 2004 election--that Democrats lose because they are perceived as anti-religious. Marcotte's resignation is a good start to not letting that happen again.

Profanity is offensive, but it's not bigotry. Disrespecting other people's doctrines is insensitive, but it's not hate--it's directed at an institution, not at a race of people. And one ALWAYS has the right to criticize institutions. Institutions should receive a lot more criticism, especially the Church.

I agree that Marcotte has no business working for any political campaign. But she's not a bigot, she just thinks a doctrine is wrong and says so in a really offensive way. No politician has any business talking theology, and I don't blame anyone who refuses to vote for someone who trashtalks their sacred beliefs. Bloggers who want political jobs should watch their language or post under pseudonym.

But I have no respect for anyone who thinks that their doctrine is beyond questioning--not merely by politicians and staffers, but in the public discourse generally. Disagreement is not hate. Sometimes it's rude and counterproductive, but it's not hate, and it doesn't justify censorship.

Everyone religion has the right to proselytize, and every counter-religions has the right to counter-proselytize. All sides should be able to put that aside in the "neutral zone" of politics without forgoing the right to continue outside of politics.

I have been a subscribed to the Christian Alliance for Progress's email list since it's inception. I must say that this debate is unfortunate, and that while I may disagree with Stoller's position in some degree, the position defended here makes no sense to me.

First, while one can be personally offended at McEwen's and Marcotte's postings, agreeing with Donohue by calling it "hate speech" is wrong and a very bad political idea. Many rightwing blogs (and officials) say things extremely offensive about Democrats and liberals. While this discourse is bad, it is not hate speech. Hate speech is more than offensively expressing a disagreement over policy or even caricaturing one's opponent unfairly; it involves using speech to unfairly silence others by creating a climate of intimidation in a concrete context - say in a college classroom. This is not what is happening on the web, and people on all sides need to be able to weather some offense, while trying to minimize it.
Second, the idea that offensive comments about religion should somehow be censored out of blogs and comments strikes me as radically misunderstanding the point of the blogosphere and of its promotion of free discussion. While there is a general norm of avoiding ad hominem arguments and personal attacks against individual participants in conversation, one cannot responsibly censor a generalized criticism of the political position of an institution or a political movement. One can comment and disagree, but people have to be able to express their views; otherwise the discussion is foreclosed.
Finally, if religious liberals want others to be more accepting, they also must accept some aspects of other cultures -- including a culture of sometimes vociferous and even offensive, freewheeling debate in the blogosphere. The problem is not just that other liberals aren't sympathetic enough, but a meeting must come from both ends. And that means, above all, that one has to accept talking with people who don't have the same standards about what can't be attacked, or what the acceptable limits on appropriate discourse are. There can be grounds for good faith disagreement on particular cases, but it cannot be a precondition for talking together that no one can say anything that might be offensive to a particular religious group -- and remember, Marcotte and McEwen's comments, however offensive, were not ad hominem attacks on Catholics as a group of persons, but on the alleged hypocrisy of a particular political position of the Catholic Church. By entering politics one opens oneself to these kinds of criticisms, though we may deplore the tone.
In sum, neither Stoller nor the Cristian Alliance for Progress has done a good job, it seems to me, of removing the log from their own eyes before casting aspersions on the other -- it is ironic that this discussion has begun to resemble those very, overheated and unproductive "flame wars" on blogs which it was intended to curtail. I continue to consider myself a member of both of the feuding communities in this dispute, and hope that cooler heads, more amenable to fair (not one-sided) compromise and discussion, will prevail.

The charges against ShakeSis were:

1) She stated that the Pope was anti-gay
2) She refered to the likes of Donohue as "Christofacists"

If anyone here is "offended" by this or considers it "Anti-Catholic bigotry" then they are part of the problem, not the solution.

Chicago:

You make several excellent points. Certainly CAfP memmbers can reasonably disagree about this. I would not have posted this on the CAfp site but I was asked to post the part above the Update section by Rev Simpson.

The section blasting Mr. Stoller is, in fact, a little overheated. I really thought that we had made more progress on getting people on the left to appreciate not just religious liberals as a constituency but to show fundamental respect for religious expression in political discourse. I have two years invested in this effort and to see it all needlessly damaged--what the heck was Edwards thinking hiring Marcotte?--did, in fact, cut pretty deep.

I also found it repugnant for Stoller to say that there can only be "one" appropriate response to this issue. There is always more than one response. I also admit that I found the general unwillingness of folks on the left to concede that these posts were offensive more than a little creepy and disturbing. History has shown us that both the left and the right can have huge blind spots, and I admire people like George Orwell who have called them as they saw them rather than following the partisan herd.

Now, on your point of hwether this is "hate speech" it depends of course on your definition. Heritage dictionary defines hate speech as--"Bigoted speech attacking or disparaging a social or ethnic group or a member of such a group." I think Marcotte's posts meet this test, but probably not most US legal definitions. ( Note: Various countries approach the subject quite differently. For example, "In Iceland, the hate speech law is not confined to inciting hatred, but includes simply expressing such hatred publicly.") But your point is sound and I stand corrected--by most US legal definitons this was offensive but did not rise to the level of hate speech.

However, I don't understand why it is an inherent good for blogs to be profane and mocking of the key swing voters, whether Catholics or moderate evangelicals. The basic paradox is this: left wing blogs want to be taken seriously in the political arena, but then they engage in shock-jocky and offensive speech that turns many people off in the real world where political decisions are made. I'm not saying they don't have the right to be as obnoxious and profane as they want--clearly they do--I'm just saying they are not helping their cause (and mine!) when they do so.

Patrick:

I was always careful to distinquish between Pandagon and Shakes Sister: eg, my first post:

"For what it's worth, I haven't seen anything like that from Shakespeare's Sister blogger Melissa McEwan. I don't think it's fair to lump the two together."

FP

Drop dead. Entirely too much attention has been paid to you people who devote your lives to mis-interpreting the Bible.

I am proud to be who I am, and don't need permission slips from the likes of you and yours.

I've been writing about progressive politics and religion since I got on the web four years ago. Some of us have been paying attention but we GET no attention.

Drop dead. Entirely too much attention has been paid to you people who devote your lives to mis-interpreting the Bible.I am proud to be who I am, and don't need permission slips from the likes of you and yours.

I love how it's impossible from these sentences to tell exactly which side of the argument the speaker is on.

Now, on your point of hwether this is "hate speech" it depends of course on your definition. Heritage dictionary defines hate speech as--"Bigoted speech attacking or disparaging a social or ethnic group or a member of such a group." I think Marcotte's posts meet this test, but probably not most US legal definitions.

Would South Park meet that definition?

I guess it's just a matter of how big a gulf you see between rude, offensive, stupid and wrong on the one hand; and bigotry and hate speech on the other. I personally think it's a huge gulf. If I say "****ing Republicans are idiots", that's completely immature, stupid, and rude, but it's not hate speech. There's a big space in between South Park and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

Exodus 23: 2 "Do not join a crowd that intends to do evil. Donohue says he is leader in Catholics church Donohue is a Republican he preach hate against democrats; or liberals; can any one deny Jesus Christ was liberal. So if Catholics want to have Donohue as one of there leaders and that is your form of religion good you can follow him to hell. Read the Bible

While I am not that conversant with the situation being discussed, I have this observance about this general topic.

The religious right (or whatever you want to call "it") speaks FROM and TO the stereotypes and prejudices ingrained in American culture. Thus, even though these are wrong, any message that goes counter to the ubiquitous Calvinist thinking (the proven foundation of the right, if not American thought in general) is not readily accepted.

Even if our language is perfect, and what we say is powerful, it doesn't have the strength of something that reinforces what people have been led to believe (indeed, you could say programmed into them!) Thus, we have a much harder time communicating than the people we oppose.

For instance- I can see a really bad time coming, if we don't get this country to change direction. The way I've put it is "Taliban II is coming, and this time it wears a cross!" This may be offensive to people "on the right"- but they certainly don't stop and examine the direction and the almost certain outcome of what they support.

On the other hand, based upon the conversations I've read and overheard, liberals are VERY concerned about the results of their actions and goals- and often "our" language as well.

Maybe it is because we recognize our own humanity and failings.

If I "toned down" what I say, then I would be not accurately describing what I see as a probable future if the rr has it's way.

Something to think about...

The real failure here is the failure of the Christian community to behave in a manner that they demand of those on the "left" - and not demanding it on the "right". bust worst of all not demanding it of themselves, the ""moral"" center that you seem to claim for yourself, but fail to exhibit when it becomes most critical.

If want rhetoric against religion to "tone down" then I would suggest you start publicly castigating those in your own community like Robertson that foment hate rather than understanding and Christ's love.

hvgydify http://onnpsqes.com jayfzsie nsxpkmvu jvoosxvc [URL=http://yualjkbw.com]rydeyprl[/URL]