John Edwards to orthodox Catholics: *#@& YOU! Part 2

John Edwards has said he is offended by the "intolerant language" of Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwen. Offended yes, but not enough to fire them. According to a report in The Charlotte Observer no harm was intended. " "They have both assured me that it was never their intention to malign anyone's faith, and I take them at their word," Edwards, a former U.S. senator from North Carolina, is quoted as saying in a news release. "We're beginning a great debate about the future of our country, and we can't let it be hijacked." "

The article goes on to say: "The Edwards campaign also released statements from Marcotte and McEwen in which they express support for religious freedom. The campaign also said it did not know of the earlier comments prior to hiring the bloggers." This raises some questions about who did the hiring & how well they checked out these people they hired. Someone in the campaign had to be familiar with these 2 women's writings & should have raised a red flag about it.

I think that Catholic League president Bill Donohue had an excellent response to Edwards' statement: " “John Edwards has apparently decided that there is more to be gained by aligning himself with the cultural left than by standing on principle and firing the Catholic bashers on his payroll. Had anyone on his staff used the ‘N-word,’ he or she would have been fired immediately. But his goal is to loot the pockets of the Soros/Hollywood gang, and they—like him—aren’t offended by anti-Catholicism. Indeed, they thrive on it.

“When Mel Gibson got drunk and made anti-Semitic remarks, he paid a price for doing so. When Michael Richards got angry and made racist remarks, he paid a price for doing so. When Isaiah Washington got ticked off and made anti-gay remarks, he paid a price for doing so. But John Edwards thinks the same rules don’t apply to him, which is why he has chosen to embrace foul-mouthed anti-Catholic bigots on his payroll.

“Edwards said today that ‘We’re beginning a great debate about the future of our country, and we can’t let it be hijacked.’ I have news for him—the Catholic League—not Edwards—will decide what the debate will be about, and it won’t be about the nation. It will be about the glaring double standard that colors the entire conversation about bigotry. "

Donahue has announced a campaign that they are launching to do this. “We will launch a nationwide public relations blitz that will be conducted on the pages of the New York Times, as well as in Catholic newspapers and periodicals. It will be on-going, breaking like a wave, starting next week and continuing through 2007. It will be an education campaign, informing the public of what he did today. We will also reach out to our allies in the Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Muslim and Buddhist communities. They worked with us before on many issues, and are sure to do so again. What Edwards did today will not be forgotten.”

In a way the debate IS about the future of our country. Is our future 1 where we continue to tolerate some forms of bigotry as acceptable while condemning other types? This is not censorship. If these women want to verbally attack the Catholic Church then they better be ready to see it labeled as what it is, bigotry. There is room for valid criticism. What they did wasn't that. They were attacking the Church & saying that you are free to practice your faith, as long as it agrees with our political agenda.

Naturally, the article in The Observer shows its bias in the article. At 1 point it says: "wrote opinions that have since been widely described as anti-Catholic." It does go on to share a quote of Marcotte's that shows the description is accurate. Yet the article doesn't explain how this can be anything but anti-Catholic. In talking about Donahue it says: "Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League, which represents conservative Catholics" Note the use of the word conservative. While Bill Donahue is conservative, in this case it is used as a pejorative label for orthodox.

& they try to put Donahue on the same level as the bloggers: "According to the liberal Web site MediaMatters.org, Donohue said on MSNBC in December 2004, "Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews who hate Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular. It's not a secret, OK? And I'm not afraid to say it." " The difference is that Donahue is trying to point out a small group who are out to do what he said. The truth is by using the wordf secular he made it clear that this group had distanced itself from their faith.

What Edwards has done may appeal to those who are biased against Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular, esp those people who call themselves Catholic who are at best Catholic in name only & have turned their back on everything the Church teaches. But, it will alienate many more than it wins to his side.