Who's a bigot, now?
posted by Liberal Eagle at 2:27 PM
The rather repulsive Bill Donohue, president of the far-right Catholic League, has been expressing outrage that the John Edwards campaign has hired two bloggers, Amanda Marcotte and Melissa "Shakespeare's Sister" McEwan, he feels have made "anti-Catholic" comments on their blogs in the past.
RJ Eskow points out in the Huffington Post that, really, interpreting what Ms. Marcotte and Ms. McEwan said as religious bigotry is pretty hard: Marcotte said that "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." McEwan asked why religious conservatives don't understand about "keeping your noses out of our britches, our beds and our families?"
I mean, I'm sure Bill Donohue doesn't agree with those sentiments, but that doesn't make them outside the realm of acceptable debate.
You know who is a bigot? Bill Donohue, who said at one of those "Justice Sunday" gatherings that lesbians were "something I'd expect to see in an asylum, frankly."
Actually, this is something that really bugs me about religious conservative types. You're not allowed to criticize anything if they justify it on religious grounds, or you're a "religious bigot." Meanwhile, they're allowed to actually be bigots, only you're not allowed to say they're bigots because it's part of their religion and that makes everything okay. In fact, ironically, you're a "religious bigot" if you point out that they're being anti-gay bigots.
It's such a convenient dodge. I recall that a few years ago, then-RNC chairman Ed Gillespie put it pretty bluntly, saying that gay people who want the law to stop discriminating against them are practicing "religious bigotry" by not respecting the right of Christian conservatives to discriminate against them: "I think when people say, well, no, that is not enough, it is not enough that you accept me for who I am, you have to agree with and condone my choice. That to me is religious bigotry and I believe that is intolerance and I think they are the ones who are crossing a line here."
Oh, sorry, Ed. I guess I'll go back to being a second-class citizen, because to do otherwise would be disrespectful to your reading of scripture.
Really, I wish we as a society would get rid of this idea that beliefs and actions that would be considered totally unacceptable in any other context become instantly and uniquely worthy of respect if there's a religious justification for them. I don't think it's doing us any good at all.
RJ Eskow points out in the Huffington Post that, really, interpreting what Ms. Marcotte and Ms. McEwan said as religious bigotry is pretty hard: Marcotte said that "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." McEwan asked why religious conservatives don't understand about "keeping your noses out of our britches, our beds and our families?"
I mean, I'm sure Bill Donohue doesn't agree with those sentiments, but that doesn't make them outside the realm of acceptable debate.
You know who is a bigot? Bill Donohue, who said at one of those "Justice Sunday" gatherings that lesbians were "something I'd expect to see in an asylum, frankly."
Actually, this is something that really bugs me about religious conservative types. You're not allowed to criticize anything if they justify it on religious grounds, or you're a "religious bigot." Meanwhile, they're allowed to actually be bigots, only you're not allowed to say they're bigots because it's part of their religion and that makes everything okay. In fact, ironically, you're a "religious bigot" if you point out that they're being anti-gay bigots.
It's such a convenient dodge. I recall that a few years ago, then-RNC chairman Ed Gillespie put it pretty bluntly, saying that gay people who want the law to stop discriminating against them are practicing "religious bigotry" by not respecting the right of Christian conservatives to discriminate against them: "I think when people say, well, no, that is not enough, it is not enough that you accept me for who I am, you have to agree with and condone my choice. That to me is religious bigotry and I believe that is intolerance and I think they are the ones who are crossing a line here."
Oh, sorry, Ed. I guess I'll go back to being a second-class citizen, because to do otherwise would be disrespectful to your reading of scripture.
Really, I wish we as a society would get rid of this idea that beliefs and actions that would be considered totally unacceptable in any other context become instantly and uniquely worthy of respect if there's a religious justification for them. I don't think it's doing us any good at all.
<< Home