An interesting story has been brewing out of the John Edwards campaign for the Democratic nomination for president. He hired a couple of bloggers to run outreach to the liberal blogosphere. And their credentials were so good that it kind of backfired on him.
Let’s sample the blogging delicacy of new hire Amanda Marcotte, who writes at Pandagon:
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.
BlasphemousClassy, eh? Or how about this one?
Marcotte has a special passion against the Roman Catholic Church, and you can read more of her comments on Nightline co-anchor Terry Moran’s blog (which is definitely worth checking out). So, needless to say, Roman Catholics and other Christians questioned Edwards’ hiring abilities. Here’s how the Associated Press wrote up the brewing storm:
Two bloggers hired recently by Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards were criticized Tuesday by a Catholic group for posts they had written elsewhere on the Internet.
… [Catholic League President Bill] Donohue cited posts that the women made on blogs in the past several months in which they criticized the pope and the church for its opposition to homosexuality, abortion and contraception, sometimes using profanity.
The AP report then quoted a remarkably mild blog post from Marcotte. I understand that family papers can’t print more than a few successive words from Marcotte’s questionable posts due to her vocabulary, but the whole reason that Roman Catholics are commenting on her hire is because of how dramatically offensive they deem the language.
Of course, the AP report is excellent compared to the one from The New York Times’ John M. Broder. Here’s how Broder begins:
Two bloggers hired by John Edwards to reach out to liberals in the online world have landed his presidential campaign in hot water for doing what bloggers do — expressing their opinions in provocative and often crude language.
Oh, is that what bloggers do? And Edwards is in hot water solely because he hired bloggers? Way to spin the story! Edwards should hire Broder over the bloggers! Of course, I don’t accept the contention that Marcotte is just a humble average blogger. But even among bloggers who use crude language, they’re more at home on MySpace than a presidential campaign.
There are myriad respectable liberal bloggers out there, folks who don’t have a personal vendetta against Christians. I know the mainstream media like to dismiss all bloggers as lunatics, but isn’t it inappropriate to describe Marcotte as an average blogger?
Edwards is being criticized by conservatives and religious adherents and his hire is being defended by liberals, so it will be interesting to see how that affects what he chooses to do. Presumably he hired them because of their provocative blogging, so it would seem unfortunate if they were fired for the same reason. Salon has an unconfirmed report that the bloggers in question have been fired.
I’m sure that at the very least we can agree that this is a good lesson in support of cleaning up one’s potty-mouth when hurling verbal assaults. And remembering that what happens on the Internet does not stay in Vegas.
Update: The women are keeping their jobs. We’ll look at coverage of same if it’s warranted.
 | Posted at 6:36 pm |  Print
| Permalink | Trackback |
Comments (44) |
February 7, 2007, at 6:56 pm
[…] GetReligion, DC - 17 minutes agoBut even among bloggers who use crude language, theyre more at home in MySpace than a presidential campaign. There are myriad respectable liberal bloggers …Watch that potty mouth […]
February 7, 2007, at 7:10 pm
When I read this on Terry Moran’s blog (—much credit to ABC and Moran—) I wondered if and how the MSM would cover this; for exactly the reasons you identify. And it goes way beyond potty mouth and even gutter- or sewer- mouth.
This is in the category of extreme blasphemy AND extreme obscenity.
Plus, I think it’s going to prove to be a big enough story that it’s going to take down Edwards.
Look what ‘macaca’ did to George Allen.
Stick a fork in him.
February 7, 2007, at 7:20 pm
dismiss all bloggers as crazed lunatics
In this very neighborhood there are nice bloggers.
February 7, 2007, at 7:38 pm
Those bloggers have to go.
The entire GAME in American politics is Catholic/moderate/swing voters. Without those votes, a Democrat is toast.
February 7, 2007, at 7:58 pm
Oh any Catholic that would take her posts seriously has a problem with self-esteem.
What she’s written is not even comparable to what anti-Catholic evangelicals and fundamentalists have been preaching for years.
( Of course, they’ve toned down the language recently but it’s still on record).
Amanda Marcotte was perfectly right to state her opinions on Pandagon, no matter how banal and trivial they may have been.
For Edwards to have hired her was a mistake- not because of her opinions as such but because those opinions don’t exactly advance any real dialogue between people.
But I am fascinated as to how this should be controversial, considering that Rush Limbaugh has been using offensive language and mistating facts for years and has never been ostracized, ( in fact, he had Cheney on the air a short time ago). One may also point to other “conservative” bloggers and media characters such as Ann Coulter and Michael Savage, both of whom have been particularly vicious in their language.
February 7, 2007, at 9:04 pm
Edwards’ move is stupifying for a few reasons:
* Is he having trouble reaching liberals? Isn’t that a significant issue for him?
* Did he not bother to check at how his hired bloggers tend to communicate? Or does it not bother him?
* Does he not understand that everything on the Internet can be viewed by anybody?
A lot of politics is Marketing. In Marketing, you have to:
* Determine what differentiates your product
* Determine the target markets for your product
* Position the product with your target market — toughest step
* Craft the messages that embody your positioning
* Control (tightly) the media and methods that are used to communicate your messages
It appears that Edwards failed at every step. I agree with Raider51. He’s done.
As for the press, not only are they botching the religious angle on this story, they are botching the Marketing angle on this story. I expect better from a bunch of people who cover the political beat. Or maybe the press just doesn’t get Marketing.
February 7, 2007, at 9:11 pm
This. It’s something of a tempest in a teapot, especially when folks like Bill Donohue—who has his own quesitonable record of making inappropriate comments and using ugly vitriol—is involved. Ultimately, Edwards is best to put this behind him and move on. In six months, no one will be talking about this except those who are out to get Edwards and who have their own agendas (like the National Review).
I think all the blasphemy talk is a little overblown, but that’s the way political/religious discourse is defined these days.
February 7, 2007, at 10:06 pm
The point is not that bloggers from either the extreme right or the extreme left use questionable language and questionable judgement. The point is that Edwards went out and HIRED some of those folks to help him with his campaign. I don’t think Edwards has killed his chances at the presidency - there’s still plenty of time for voters to forget this. Nevertheless, I think he IS in the process of destroying connections with Catholic voters and maybe even people like me, (Democrats for Life types who don’t happen to be Catholic) and he’d better think up a better strategy.
February 8, 2007, at 1:56 am
Patterico—the chief nemesis of the Los Angeles Times, just by way of ID’ing him here—sums it up for me:
Now, judging from the reaction from the left blogosphere today, lefties generally disagree with me, and think that Marcotte is not a liability. They believe that her rhetoric is not that unusual. A bit profane, perhaps, but not something that should really offend Americans that much.
This view is, of course, utterly insane, as any rational person even vaguely familiar with Marcotte’s writings is well aware. The proof is in the links three paragraphs up, as well as in various places around the blogosphere. It’s not hard to find. If you’re bad at surfing, just go to her site and browse around. Once again, Allah puts it well:
“Marcotte’s been a punchline on Goldstein’s site for years; to see her suddenly materialize as lead blogger for a major presidential candidate is like the cat lady from the Simpsons being hired as White House press secretary. To call her a caricature of a doctrinaire feminist doesn’t even scratch the surface. Imagine a vicious parody of a vicious parody of a doctrinaire feminist and you’re at the appropriate remove of cartoonishness.”
Bingo.
I’m not going to argue this point at length. Either you see it or you don’t. Either you realize that most Americans are religious and will bristle at the term “godbags,†or you don’t.
February 8, 2007, at 5:15 am
That’s all fine and dandy.
If most Americans are religious and wouldn’t like to be called “godbags” then why do most Americans seem to tolerate the often vicious attacks from right-wing “pundits” etc; against Americans who don’t agree with them?
I’d like to see the same outrage over their comments as I see from this teapot tempest.
February 8, 2007, at 7:43 am
The reaction in the moderate blogosphere, especially in the comments on posts by Garance Franke-Rute at Tapped, KevinDrum at Washington Monthly suggest that this is more an issue of leadership than of prejudice. That is, the Right is certainly filled with its noxious writers, and right-wing figures occasionally embrace these figures as well (there’s a particularly interesting picture of the President with these right-wing commentators on the Steve Benen’s site.
Franke-Ruta has it right: in politics what you say can and will be held against you — a lesson that all political types, left and right, should hold to heart. Reminds me of something about secrets and housetops, too.
February 8, 2007, at 8:07 am
evagrius,
I am reluctant to reply, because it is getting off-topic, but I must disagree with you.
A lot of what I’ve read of Savage and Coulter is repugnant and reprehensible. I don’t frequent those circles, so I’m not that capable of commenting, however. I think if any candidate hired either of these persons they would rightfully be raked over the coals. The GOP is in serious trouble with having people like Trent Lott (Dixiecrat) or John McCain with his obscene “joke” about Chelsea Clinton. In any event, I don’t think saying “well, the other side also says nasty things” is really a good defense. Do you?
The problem is this isn’t just a teapot tempest — it’s a very offensive statement. And Mollie’s right, it’s so offensive, that most press accounts will not be able to repeat it.
February 8, 2007, at 8:56 am
So I’ve been thinking about this since last night. I don’t think the AP or NYT did a good job of characterizing or excerpting Marcotte’s views, but how do you do it when they are so beyond the level of acceptable discourse?
I mean, you don’t run across this problem very often since offensive views are usually not so profane.
Do you handle it like people recently handled Paris Hilton’s “n” word outbursts? I think you could — I think you could include the cuss words in that manner.
Althogh some of her anti-religious rhetoric is fine for quoting so I don’t know why it isn’t just quoted.
February 8, 2007, at 9:07 am
Will there ever come a time when the media does some research/investigation into the the mindset of non-Catholics whose irrational hatred of the Church is so deep that they would write such things? The things this woman has written are the equivalent of the worst kind of anti-Semitism coming from the jihadis.
This is not a story about political misjudgment by Mr. Edwards. It is a story about hate.
February 8, 2007, at 9:28 am
After monitoring this blog for a while, I must conclude that there are three possibilities:
1. The press just doesn’t get religion
2. Some in the press get their particular brand of religion but just don’t get people with other religious viewpoints
3. For those in the press who get religion, politics trumps religion
Many stories with a religious angle, such as the Edwards story, leave me shaking my head and concluding #1. But I shouldn’t leap to that conclusion. After all, I don’t know the religious background, understanding, and viewpoints of Nedra Pickler of the AP, John Broder of the NY Times, or, for that matter, just about anyone in the press. So, as an example, I’ll focus on the comments in this blog by Michael.
Michael is a left-of-center member of the press. He is a smart cat who presents well-reasoned arguments to buttress his points of view. I don’t agree with him on a lot of issues, but I respect him because he makes me think.
Clearly, Michael gets that this was a bonehead move by Edwards. But he minimizes it by:
* Calling it a “tempest in a teapot”
* Saying that the blasphemy talk is “overblown”
* Calling into question the motives of those who are drawing attention to the matter
* Insisting that everyone without an “agenda” will forget about this in six months
Clearly, many Christians, both liberal and conservative, are or would be deeply offended by the anti-Christian blog comments authorized by Edwards. (Imagine the outrage if anti-Jewish or anti-Muslim comments had been posted!) So, why is Michael minimizing this?
Based on Michael’s posts over the past year, I cannot conclude #1 about him. And he seems way too smart to not understand the religious viewpoints of people who do not share his religious bent. Therefore, I am left with #3.
My opinion is that, in nearly every story that mixes religion and politics, politics trumps religion. And politics is so influential on so many in the press, especially those in D.C. and NYC, that most stories about religion end up having a political bent or bias. Just look at this blog!
That’s how I see it here in Flyover Country.
February 8, 2007, at 9:51 am
I don’t think politics trumps religion, but I think the use of religion as a bludgeon in politics needs to be analyzed carefully.
Maybe it’s my cynicism of watching politics, but when you see the cast of characters leading the assault on Edwards, you realize that politics—not religion—is the prime motivation. That the cast of characters—including Lopez and her gang at the National Review and caustic blogger Michele Malkin—were also involved in the “Swift boating” of John Kerry requires one to question their motivations. Religion just happend to be a very effective weapon because it immunizes your attacks.
Edwards hires two bloggers and they have a reputation for going over-board, allegedly offending Catholics. That’s a mistaike and Edwards should deal with the problem. But the suggestion that he’s insensitive to Catholics or hates Catholics or religous people or that people wouldn’t vote for him because of this is just silliness at they beginning of the silly season of election politics.
February 8, 2007, at 10:04 am
“Allegedly offending Catholics”??? Allegedly??
You clearly have no idea how offensive it is for Catholics to hear such things said about the Mother of God.
Chris — your point is proven.
February 8, 2007, at 10:10 am
Like Michael, I think it’s necessary to recognize that it’s conservative Christians who are upset about Marcotte’s anti-religious rhetoric. They clearly have a political angle in this. In Lopez’s case, she has a long history of writing about Catholic issues and she is an outspoken RC and graduate of Catholic U, etc. So while she’s obviously the editor of one of the most well-read conservative sites on the interweb, her Catholic credentials and concerns are solid.
What I find interesting is that pundits on the left are NOT upset about the rhetoric.
I think that this whole imbroglio could have a positive impact — it could teach childish bloggers on left and right to grow up and spend more than a few seconds writing something non-blue/non-incendiary if they want to be taken seriously, etc. I hope it could improve the general manner in which people discuss religion.
February 8, 2007, at 10:17 am
I don’t think that of Edwards himself. However, I do think that the comments of these bloggers are reflective of the thoughts of many Edwards supporters, and the kind of people he would appoint if he was elected to office.
Therefore, I won’t vote for him, because I don’t want to have bigots riding in on his coattails and making policy regarding us “godbags”.
February 8, 2007, at 10:35 am
She also uses her religion for political purposes, the same way some African American or gay activists use their identity for political purposes. I have no doubt there is some personal involved in this, but there’s also a big helping of public politicalness in her outrage.
In fact, the netroots are upset because Edwards is folding to the demands of religious conservative activists who are the powerbase of the Republican party. We have definitely entered a strange time in our politics.
February 8, 2007, at 11:14 am
Edwards hires two bloggers and they have a reputation for going over-board, allegedly offending Catholics.
Soft-pedaling what Marcotte has actually written in this way represents a chasm so huge it may be unbridgeable. Patterico said it best. I’m not going to argue this point at length. Either you see it or you don’t. Either you realize that most Americans are religious and will bristle at the term “godbags,†or you don’t. After reading how Marcotte describes the fetus as a parasite, or the densely foul portrait she paints about Catholics, or Christians, or whites, or southerners, or males, or the combined forces of the left-wing apocalpyse in the form of a white Christian southern male, I want to take one of those high-tech showers you see in movies about getting sterilized after working in a level-4 biohazard.
If you want to be blandly political about it, base your calculations on the number of people who genuninely feel that way.
February 8, 2007, at 11:18 am
Perhaps it’s a question of skill: a good writer can be critical without being offensive.
February 8, 2007, at 11:27 am
[…] I m sure that at the very least we can agree that this is a good lesson in support of cleaning up one s potty-mouth when hurling verbal assaults. And remembering that what happens on the Internet does not stay in Vegas. Bookmark to: … – More – […]
February 8, 2007, at 11:29 am
Biden? Check.
Edwards? Check.
February 8, 2007, at 11:49 am
Mollie, when you write “conservative Christians”, I assume that you mean “political conservatives who are Christians”. I commented on the use of overloaded terms such as “conservative” and “evangelical” in a different blog post. It is an epidemic in the press.
I wasn’t trying to pick on Michael. Frankly, you seem to be just as influenced by politics as he. Maybe it’s where you live. When I lived in the D.C. area, I fell into the same trap. I can’t tell you how refreshing it is to be out of there.
Maybe my #3 is correct. I think that political influence on the press is the 800-pound gorilla in the room that the press wants to pretend isn’t there. You folks seem to see EVERYTHING through the political lens. Or maybe us simple folks out here in Flyover Country just don’t grasp the uber-importance of politics.
February 8, 2007, at 11:55 am
“Sometimes using profanity?” Heck, it’s faster just to count the non-profane words in any given post of Amanda’s.
February 8, 2007, at 12:01 pm
Chris,
Yes, I definitely meant political conservatives who are Christian — sorry for not being more explicit.
Also, while I do not shy away from political issues on this blog where we look at how the media cover religion, I’ve also written in these pixels about how much I abhor the political overemphasis in religious news stories.
I belong to a non-political religious group (Lutheran Church Missouri Synod) — because of our belief that spiritual issues are infinitely more important than political issues.
Because we’re not political, we tend to be ignored by the mainstream media, only really getting coverage if we speak against political involvement.
I find it frustrating.
But I think this story has legitimate religious angles. I couldn’t give a crap about the political angles — even though I’m sure that’s what’s driving a lot of the interest on various sides.
February 8, 2007, at 12:52 pm
The interesting part of this is that the Democrats are making an attempt to reach out to the so-called ‘values voters’, including the traditional Catholic supporters. Part of it was all this nice media mentions about so-and-so’s Catholic/Baptist/Methodist/what-have-you background.
Mr. Edwards, in an interview, mentioned that he had been raised Southern Baptist and that his father was a deacon. So far, so good.
Then you get people to help run your campaign by expanding into the new technologies, using the internet and exploiting their online presence. So far, so good.
However - and here is where the ‘joined-up thinking’ has failed whoever is in charge of hiring the help for the campaign - you certainly do *not* want to attract this kind of publicity by having people who expressed very robust and heartfelt anti-religious views on their own blogs (which I fully accept they are perfectly entitled to do) be the ones doing the outreach to the undecided. It makes you look either foolish or hypocritical - neither of which builds confidence in your candidate’s ability to run the country.
Seriously, did *nobody* have a quick glance at the sites these women maintained? the content? their opinions? Was it just “We need someone who can work that newfangled device - oh, here’s a C.V. - yeah, she’ll do!” How could they hire someone (two someones, to make it better) without even a “Can you show us a sample of your work?” to see if they could stay on-message?
February 8, 2007, at 1:06 pm
Michael, to take your point about “that people wouldn’t vote for him because of this is just silliness at they beginning of the silly season of election politics” - I don’t have a vote in American elections (some nitpicking smallmindedness about me not actually being an American citizen, not actually living in America, or ever intending to do so) but if I did, I’d be a Democrat.
Or rather, I’m one of the Irish Catholics who would have been a Democrat. Bill Clinton is amazingly popular still over here - he strikes us as just like one of our own. I don’t like what President Bush has done to the Republican Party (or the government of the U.S.A. or international politics or world peace) and I’d be in tune with the old-fashioned social democratic policies of the Dems.
But if I were entitled to vote, and looking for a candidate to support, I would - with a heavy heart - be crossing John Edwards off my list of possibles. Precisely for this reason. That he has working for him people with such virulent hatred of Catholicism and Catholics. Maybe Mr. Edwards himself doesn’t have this; very likely not. But the people around him either are so careless they didn’t even run a basic check of ‘so what are the political beliefs of these two and do they fit our strategy?’ or they don’t think it matters that they hold these kind of beliefs or - worse still - they hold these kind of beliefs themselves but they’re keeping them hidden because they have to appeal to the ‘godbags’ to vote for them and once in power, the useful idiots will be tossed overboard.
John Kerry’s little photo-opportunity stunt when receiving the Blessed Sacrament really ticked me off - and I was hoping and praying for a Democrat, any kind of Democrat with half a chance of getting elected, to run against Bush.
So, yeah: it’s a big deal. Let’s face it: if he’d hired these bloggers and it turned out that they had made disrespectful, vitriolic, obscene and foul-mouthed comments about ‘queers’ or ‘kikes’, would you still maintain ‘oh, this whole ruffle is only political silly-season stuff’?
February 8, 2007, at 1:16 pm
what bothers me about this brouhaha is the sympathy Donohue has received on this subject when it’s entirely obvious his motivations are political and not emotional.
he and his opinions should be regarded as political histrionics and consequently dismissed. likewise for all politicos who try to work up the ‘war on christianity’ issue - it’s merely a ploy to strengthen their political base.
there is no war on christianity. get over it.
February 8, 2007, at 1:36 pm
If we cannot tolerate people exercising their 1st adendment rights, then we are no better than a bunch of screaming crazies upset about making a cartoon of their prophet.
February 8, 2007, at 1:40 pm
You know, Bill Donohoe has talked about the “gay death” lifestyle and that many in Hollywood would “sodomize their own mothers” to make a profit.
I think that bears mentioning, unless you’d rather be accused of covering up hypocrisy to make a political point.
February 8, 2007, at 1:42 pm
You should try to bring people up to your level, not sink down to theirs to win votes.
February 8, 2007, at 1:46 pm
You clearly have no idea how offensive it is for Catholics to hear such things said about the Mother of God.
And you clearly have no idea how offensive it is to be at the receiving end of a catholic or evangelical attack. I’m not defending Edwards’s choice, but it’s easy to see what Marcotte is reacting to in her own writing.
February 8, 2007, at 1:48 pm
Google news has this topic #1 on it’s list now. I guess they must key off ‘potty’ and/or ‘mouth’. But you can expect more visitors to here in any event.
Watch that potty mouth
GetReligion - 18 hours ago
February 8, 2007, at 1:48 pm
Eric: No one has a “right” to a prominent political campaign job. No one is urging the bloggers be beheaded, so your rhetoric is absurd.
I personally don’t much care who Edwards employs, as I wouldn’t vote for him in a million years, and seeing him associate with people who loudly espouse such views is fine with me, since he has exactly zero chance of ever being President. Although I definitely see the danger in allowing this sort of “discourse” to enter the mainstream.
I also wish they wouldn’t have bothered to release an “apology” that is so laughably insincere. Just be honest and say that you (Edwards) don’t care about their past posts, and that you (the bloggers) were being unwisely hyperbolic and provocative. The claim that they never intended to cause offense to anyone’s religion is a farce, since that’s obviously exactly what they intended.
February 8, 2007, at 1:52 pm
From the Washington Post article:
“I’ve talked to Amanda and Melissa; they have both assured me that it was never their intention to malign anyone’s faith, and I take them at their word,” Edwards said.
I also take Marcotte and McEwen at their word. I read their blogs. They are violently anti-Catholic. But apparently the media finds it acceptable to be anti-Catholic; just don’t be pro-Catholic or you are a zealot.
February 8, 2007, at 2:22 pm
I find it interesting that there’s this big concern about anti-Catholocism but I guess it’s only important if, somehow, being Catholic and being conservative are one and the same.
February 8, 2007, at 3:21 pm
I’m an orthodox Catholic who has a major problem with the way the press covers the Church but I found the Marcotte’s “Q & A” about Plan B and the Holy Spirit to be more sad than offensive. Anyone who talks like that has major problems. Insofar as her suitability as a campaign employee is concerned, it seems to me the issue is more her utter lack of respect for what other people believe than it is a problem of anti-Catholic bigotry. What Marcotte said is her problem, and now John Edwards’; it is not much of a problem for Catholics or the Church. The press coverage is a problem however. Note how at end of the article linked to in the update there is an attack on Donohue (an attack echoed by Michael). This more of what we saw in the initial coverage — an effort to play down the controversy, this time by discrediting Donohue. An attack on Donohue is totally gratuitous given that his only involvement was to bring the matter to the attention of the press.
February 8, 2007, at 4:09 pm
I read some of the comments for myself. And anyone who doesn’t see how a Catholic could be offended by the vile, ignorant, intemperate, bigoted language of these bloggers is knee deep in his own sick psychological problems with bigotry.
Because those of us who believe in traditional Christian and Catholic morality have been driven from the Democrat Party (my family includes former Democrat city committee members, Democrat state committee members, and a Democrat candidate for state-wide office) and most now find ourselves registered independents (or “unenrolled” here in Mass.) doesn’t mean we should be the butt of insulting language so vile and despicable that the mainstream media doesn’t dare publish it(unlike even Coulter’s fulminations).
And that so many on the left-wing of the Democrat Party and liberalism not only refuse to attack anti-Catholic bigotry, but enthusiastically defend it, merely proves that what one historian said is still very true today in that party-“The anti-Semitism of the Left is anti-Catholicism.” It is sad and tragic that a party so many Catholics (including myself-a former Democrat City Committee member and McGovern campaign worker) once revered has become the playground of haters. Maybe some of our anguish and anger at what is happening in the Democrat Party is because some of us were so strongly in support of it once upon a time.
February 8, 2007, at 7:25 pm
Edwards is writing off more than just the Catholic vote.
February 8, 2007, at 8:34 pm
Amanda Marcotte doesn’t seem to like any brand of Christianity: I don’t know much about Texas, but I’m guessing it is not predominantly Roman Catholic. And so, any parent who might have objections to this newly-introduced mandatory vaccination of 12 year old girls can only opt out on religious/philosophical grounds: “Texas allows parents to opt out of inoculations by filing an affidavit objecting to the vaccine on religious or philosophical reasons.”
Now, I can see why some parents might be wary; I don’t like this notion myself. A company that donated campaign funds to the Governor has now had its vaccine made mandatory in all schools by that same Governor. You surely couldn’t be thought unreasonable if you asked “Well, what is this vaccine supposed to do? Is there an alternative? Why should the product of one company only be considered - much less rushed into law and made compulsory?”
But if you do, then according to Amanda, http://pandagon.net/2007/02/04/agreeing-with-the-anti-choicers-its-a-lot-harder-to-look-someone-in-the-eye-before-you-hurt-her/
you are “vindictive, misogynist parents” who “refuse to protect their daughters from cervical cancer” and engage in “active abuse, really.”, who just “want to keep your daughter in danger of getting cervical cancer” and “you’re the kind of creep that would rather have your daughter be dead from cancer than to face up to the fact that she is going to grow up and have sex one day.” All this because you are “anti-choicers” (a phrase I would have associated with abortion rights controversy, not the idea of vaccination) and “a terrible parent. Putting a form in your daughter’s hands that explicitly states that you do not want her to have the opportunity to avoid cervical cancer is not exactly the way to tell her you love her. A lot more people would be willing to deny their daughters medical care if they could do so the cowardly way.”
I wonder if Amanda has heard of the controversy over the MMR vaccine in Britain and that some parents do not want their children to receive it because of fears that it may be linked with autism? Is this because they are religious bigots who fear sex and want to stamp out abortion ‘rights’? Or is it because parents are concerned about their children’s health, not about enabling a so-called adult woman to keep on fornicating without fear of getting “even just genital warts” (dont’ worry, that last remark was not offensive; it’s in the same vein as Amanda’s remarks and we’ve been reassured she has no intent to offend).
February 9, 2007, at 10:23 am
[…] GetReligion has coverage of Democratic-presidential-nomination-seeking  John Edward’s bloggers’ blasphemies. […]
February 9, 2007, at 11:18 am
I agree with Martha: the blog comments offend many more people than (theologically conservative) Catholics. The press coverage on the religious side of this has been overly simplistic and, as usual, has been shouted down by the all-important political “debate”. There are three possibilities:
1. The press just doesn’t get religion
2. Some in the press get their particular brand of religion but just don’t get people with other religious viewpoints
3. For those in the press who get religion, politics trumps religion
I’ll add a cynical fourth possibility: The press is too lazy or arrogant to recognize that most people don’t fit into the press’s handy religious categories (such as Evangelical, Catholic, liberal). Here’s some unsolicited advice for the press in reporting on religious matters:
* Stop treating your readers like simpletons
* Stop trying to “interpret” everything — your bias is showing
* Do your job