Vulgar, trash-talking anti-Catholic.

[americanstranger]

Do Catholics really believe they are eating Christ when they take the host? Allah knows that your priests have a taste for flesh--the younger the better, it seems--but this is ridiculous. And you have the gall to mock Muslims for believing that Satan lives in their nostrils at night? Allah will admit that we have our eccentric beliefs like any other faith, but at least cannibalism is not part of the core curriculum. Stop chewing on Jesus, you ghoulish fucks.

Amanda Marcotte, right? Melissa McEwan, right??

Nope.

It's Michelle Malkin's good buddy Allahpundit.

http://web.archive.org/web/20031223161832/www.allahpundit.com/archives/000073.html

We can expect Bill Donohue to hold a press conference tomorrow morning, and Malkin to go nuts on her blog condemning this dude, right?

Right?

- as

[madfloridian]

1. Good old Allahpundit.

I just paid a visit to Malkin's site and then got brave enough to take a trip to Little Green Footballs. Now I have a terrible headache.

There are dual accountabilities...one for us..one for them.

[Melynn]

13. I love Little Green Footballs

It's the best! Charles Johnson rocks.

[MADem]

2. Send it to Donahue--he will abandon the right for the Vatican, make no mistake.

He has to see it to gripe. I don't think he's a net nut, myself.

Malkin probably won't say anything. But Donohue is affiliated with a Catholic organization. He can't ignore it if he's made aware of it.

[americanstranger]

3. A capitol idea!

Off to the Catholic League site I go! Thanks for the suggestion!

- as

On edit:

Here's the message I sent via the Catholic League web site (http://www.catholicleague.org/feedbackii.htm):

Since your organization is showing concern over anti-Catholic web postings by bloggers, I'd like to call you attention to this post on a web site called Allahpundit.

http://web.archive.org/web/20031223161832/www.allahpundit.com/archives/000073.html

I demand that your organization condemn the virulent anti-Catholic sentiment expressed on this blog.

Thank you,
(my name)

I encourage any other DUers who are so inclined to contact the Catholic League and express your outrage over this virulent anti-Catholicism. Let's see if we can get a winger caught in their little game of outrage.

I personally doubt it, but it's worth a shot.

[patrice]

6. Will do. n/t

[MADem]

8. And play it on the level--short, sweet, and to the point, just as you did.

Well done, BTW...

[patrice]

4. The Mystical Body of Christ is no less his body than his flesh

and blood were. That's why the bread and wine are referred to as body and blood. They are not a symbol representing body and blood. That shouldn't be such a stretch for anyone who is spiritual, because spirituality recognizes that concrete world has other dimensions. Sharing in love and service unites the dimensions. The Food becomes us. We become the Food.

[illinoisprogressive]

5. I wish someone would just stuff a sock in Malkins' mouth

[Straight Shooter]

7. "your priests have a taste for flesh, the younger the better ..."

Don't confuse priests with Republican perverts, allahpundit.

[pnwmom]

9. Wow. Has Edwards hired Allahpundit, too?

What a guy.

[americanstranger]

10. No, but those are the people who are criticizing him.

Like I said. Bigots. Bigots and hypocrites.

- as

[pnwmom]

11. They are NOT the only people criticizing him. They are the people

who brought the bloggers to everybody's attention. But other Catholics -- middle of the road and liberal Catholics -- will make up their own minds when they read the material from the blogs.

Here's an article from Commonweal, the liberal Catholic magazine.

First the reporter puts the issue in context by reviewing Donohue's own bigotry.

SNIP

"Not only is he an embarrassment who obviously doesn't hold himself to the same standards he holds for others, but his judgment of what counts as anti-Catholic is, to say the least, seriously suspect, and has a tendency towards, shall we say, ideological selectivity. Finally, as much as it pains me to say it, I think Donohue may have a point in this case. The blog posts mentioned in the story did speak of a deep-seated hostility to the Church as an institution. For example, one post described in the article said the following:

''The Catholic church is not about to let something like compassion for girls get in the way of using the state as an instrument to force women to bear more tithing Catholics,'' Marcotte wrote on the blog Pandagon on Dec. 26.

"Besides being inaccurate (how many Catholics actually tithe?), I think Marcotte's post goes beyond simply criticizing the Church's positions on contraception, etc. on the merits and attacks the institution as a whole in ways that resonate with traditionally anti-Catholic rhetoric from the bad old days. There are plenty of substantive grounds on which to criticize the Church's position on contraception without resorting to rhetoric that consciously aims to offend. Does this mean that Edwards should fire the bloggers, as Donohue is demanding? I leave that for you to hash out in the comments."


Speaking of Edwards's decision to retain the bloggers, the writer says,

"FWIW, apart from the merits of his decision, I think this way of explaining things is a mistake. The comments on Marcotte's blog (especially on this post) were clearly intended to offend. (Really, what else could be intended by a post comparing the Holy Spirit to semen and talking about Mary taking Plan B to prevent the conception -- or, more accurately, induce the abortion -- of Jesus?) I think the vast majority of Catholic voters see that. For Edwards to take Marcotte at her word -- that she did not intend to offend -- is pretty much to tell those who are offended that there is something wrong with them. If he felt he could not fire her (perhaps because of a fear of being viewed as having caved in to hacks like Donohue and Michelle Malkin), it would have been better for Edwards to draw a different line, saying that he would not hold people responsible for blog posts written before they came to work for him, or something like that. To say that he actually believes that she did not intend to offend Catholics either means he is a sucker (because he believes her, even though she clearly did intend to offend) or he thinks Catholics who were offended are suckers (because he thinks they'll believe that he believed Marcotte did not intend to offend). Alternatively, he may think that Catholics who were so offended that they will now not vote for him were people who would not have voted for him anyway. I think that would be another mistake. Am I wrong? Has this changed anyone's mind about Edwards?"

Having a well-respected, liberal publication like Commonweal criticize Edwards's decision to retain these bloggers can only hurt him among the progressive, populist Catholics he may have been hoping to attract.

Oh yeah -- almost forgot to ask. Do you consider Will Pitt to be one of the bigots, too? Because he said yesterday that the bloggers comments were "pretty goddam insulting." Guess he must be one of those evil Donohue proponents, too.

[americanstranger]

12. You seem to have aligned yourself with him.

You're upset with words on a blog.

Do Donohue's words upset you? Does talk of 'a white guy giving oral sex to a statue of Martin Luther King with an erection' offend you? Does the notion that 'lesbians belong in an insane asylum' offend you?

Do repeated innuendo of how 'Hollywood believes in anal sex' offend you?

They should. And this is the guy who you're aligning yourself with, whether you want to admit it or not.

Who is the author of the Commonweal article? I'd like to do a Google on him and find out where his sympathies lie. Hell, there's one Bill Donohue walking around portraying himself as a 'good Catholic,' who says there can't be more - is it beyond the realm of imagination that there may be one writing for a 'liberal' publication? If Bill Donohue - a hateful anti-Semite with a gutter imagination that is way more perverse than most atheists I know - can parade as a spokesman for the Catholic Church on TV, anything is possible.

Sure, he criticizes Donohue, but Republicans stand on Capitol Hill and criticize Bush's War - and then they turn around and vote for no debate on the morality of that war. Saying one thing and doing another is a pretty popular way of doing things nowadays.

And I asked this question on the other thread, which was never answered - when does the vaunted Christian tenet of forgiveness kick in? Or are you so hardened in your opinion that there is no forgiveness in that Catholic heart of yours for a couple of young women who posted insulting words on a blog?

That's as serious a question as I can post, because for a Catholic, you seem pretty contemptuous of anyone who isn't seeing this your way.

- as

[pnwmom]

14. You can see who the author is by following the link. I don't remember.

For the millionth time, I recognize the fact that Donohue is a reprehensible person. Doesn't matter. He's still right that these blogger's statements are anti-Catholic. If Donohue said that "up is up", or that 2 + 2 = 4, by your logic we would all be obliged to shout out: NO, "up is down!" and 2 + 2 = (-4) Because WHATEVER Donohue says by definition, the opposite must be true.

Wrong. Donohue just happened to get it right this time, like the broken clock that tells the correct time twice a day. The fact is that Donohue didn't put any words into the bloggers columns. They did that. All he did was go down into the dark archives and shine his flashlight on the stuff he found down there. After that, millions of other Catholics are fully capable of reading the words for ourselves, and even holding our noses and going into the archives without him.

Concerning the author of the Commonweal article, it doesn't really matter who the author is, either. Why? Because the article appeared in a LIBERAL Catholic magazine, which means that -- whatever the background of the author -- plenty of Edwards potential voters are now reading it. Which is not good for Edwards. Which is why Edwards has made a mistake in his decision to risk offending Catholics rather than the netroots bloggers.

When does forgiveness kick in? Maybe when the writers stop lying. They told Edwards they never meant to malign the Catholic church. Edwards may be gullible enough to believe that -- or maybe he thinks Catholics will be. But even if I, personally, forgave them -- so what? They'll still be a drag on Edwards's campaign.