Comments on: Watch that potty mouth http://www.getreligion.org/2007/02/watch-that-potty-mouth/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=watch-that-potty-mouth "The press . . . just doesn't get religion." -- William Schneider Sat, 04 Feb 2012 05:47:05 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Chris Bolinger http://www.getreligion.org/2007/02/watch-that-potty-mouth/comment-page-1/#comment-81281 Chris Bolinger Fri, 09 Feb 2007 16:18:40 +0000 http://www.getreligion.org/?p=2207#comment-81281 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 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

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Links of the Week « The Time Has Come http://www.getreligion.org/2007/02/watch-that-potty-mouth/comment-page-1/#comment-81266 Links of the Week « The Time Has Come Fri, 09 Feb 2007 15:23:36 +0000 http://www.getreligion.org/?p=2207#comment-81266 [...] GetReligion has coverage of Democratic-presidential-nomination-seeking  John Edward’s bloggers’ blasphemies. [...] […] GetReligion has coverage of Democratic-presidential-nomination-seeking  John Edward’s bloggers’ blasphemies. […]

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Martha http://www.getreligion.org/2007/02/watch-that-potty-mouth/comment-page-1/#comment-81128 Martha Fri, 09 Feb 2007 01:34:42 +0000 http://www.getreligion.org/?p=2207#comment-81128 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). 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).

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: episcopal priest http://www.getreligion.org/2007/02/watch-that-potty-mouth/comment-page-1/#comment-81118 episcopal priest Fri, 09 Feb 2007 00:25:59 +0000 http://www.getreligion.org/?p=2207#comment-81118 Edwards is writing off more than just the Catholic vote. Edwards is writing off more than just the Catholic vote.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Deacon John M. Bresnahan http://www.getreligion.org/2007/02/watch-that-potty-mouth/comment-page-1/#comment-81079 Deacon John M. Bresnahan Thu, 08 Feb 2007 21:09:43 +0000 http://www.getreligion.org/?p=2207#comment-81079 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. 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.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Dan http://www.getreligion.org/2007/02/watch-that-potty-mouth/comment-page-1/#comment-81065 Dan Thu, 08 Feb 2007 20:21:12 +0000 http://www.getreligion.org/?p=2207#comment-81065 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. 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.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: evagrius http://www.getreligion.org/2007/02/watch-that-potty-mouth/comment-page-1/#comment-81048 evagrius Thu, 08 Feb 2007 19:22:01 +0000 http://www.getreligion.org/?p=2207#comment-81048 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. 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.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Ric http://www.getreligion.org/2007/02/watch-that-potty-mouth/comment-page-1/#comment-81034 Ric Thu, 08 Feb 2007 18:52:27 +0000 http://www.getreligion.org/?p=2207#comment-81034 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. 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.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Brian http://www.getreligion.org/2007/02/watch-that-potty-mouth/comment-page-1/#comment-81032 Brian Thu, 08 Feb 2007 18:48:20 +0000 http://www.getreligion.org/?p=2207#comment-81032 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. 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.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Jerry http://www.getreligion.org/2007/02/watch-that-potty-mouth/comment-page-1/#comment-81031 Jerry Thu, 08 Feb 2007 18:48:13 +0000 http://www.getreligion.org/?p=2207#comment-81031 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 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

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: David http://www.getreligion.org/2007/02/watch-that-potty-mouth/comment-page-1/#comment-81030 David Thu, 08 Feb 2007 18:46:57 +0000 http://www.getreligion.org/?p=2207#comment-81030 <em>You clearly have no idea how offensive it is for Catholics to hear such things said about the Mother of God.</em> 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. 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.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Sparks http://www.getreligion.org/2007/02/watch-that-potty-mouth/comment-page-1/#comment-81027 Sparks Thu, 08 Feb 2007 18:42:05 +0000 http://www.getreligion.org/?p=2207#comment-81027 You should try to bring people up to your level, not sink down to theirs to win votes. You should try to bring people up to your level, not sink down to theirs to win votes.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Kevin http://www.getreligion.org/2007/02/watch-that-potty-mouth/comment-page-1/#comment-81026 Kevin Thu, 08 Feb 2007 18:40:23 +0000 http://www.getreligion.org/?p=2207#comment-81026 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. 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.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Eric http://www.getreligion.org/2007/02/watch-that-potty-mouth/comment-page-1/#comment-81025 Eric Thu, 08 Feb 2007 18:36:47 +0000 http://www.getreligion.org/?p=2207#comment-81025 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. 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.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Terrance http://www.getreligion.org/2007/02/watch-that-potty-mouth/comment-page-1/#comment-81022 Terrance Thu, 08 Feb 2007 18:16:23 +0000 http://www.getreligion.org/?p=2207#comment-81022 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. 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.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]>