NPR Thinks Wishing Jesse Helms or One of His Grandchildren Would Die of AIDS is Okay [UPDATED]

This is the only conclusion one can draw from National Public Radio's decision to fire Juan Williams after Williams related to Bill O'Reilly his understandable anxiety over flying with Muslims after 9-11 (while nevertheless warning O'Reilly of the necessity of not stereotyping all Muslims for the actions of a few), but NOT firing Nina Totenberg several years ago after making the following statement:

“... if there's retributive justice, [Jesse Helms] will get AIDS from a transfusion, or one of his grandchildren will get it.”

As the linked piece notes, Totenberg is still NPR's legal affairs correspondent. It is perfectly reasonable to conclude, therefore, that NPR thinks it's just great for one of its correspondents to publicly wish AIDS upon the innocent grandchildren of someone with whom that correspondent disagrees politically.

Any doubts about whether NPR is anything more than a left-wing propaganda organ may now be removed.




UPDATE
JUAN WILLIAMS: I Was Fired for Telling the Truth


UPDATE #2 (22 October)




UPDATE #3 (22 October)
The Corner has complied a list of Nina Totenberg's Greatest Hits: "What About Totenberg?"

(Hat tip: Creative Minority Report)

Meanwhile, the NPR ombudman/person, while noting that the firing was "poorly handled", nevertheless defends the public broadcaster's decision to terminate the contract of Juan Williams.


UPDATE #4 (22 October)
For the record, someone in this whole Juan Williams - NPR dustup made a public comment that should cost someone that person's job. That someone was NOT Juan Williams, but NPR's CEO, Vivian Schiller:


Someone needs a refresher course on HR dos and don'ts. Ms. Schiller has likely opened up herself and NPR for a lawsuit. I, for one, hope Williams decides to take them to the cleaners.

Columbus Day: No Apologies [UPDATED]

Read Joe Hargrave's tribute to Columbus Day at The American Catholic:

Few days provide so great an occasion for an orgy of self-hatred (among the white elites) and faux moral outrage as Columbus Day. But long before communists, socialists, and their fellow-travelers seized control of our educational institutions and rewrote the history of the Western civilization – a revision which is force-fed to most students in our public reeducation centers – Columbus was celebrated as a great explorer and a daring adventurer who undertook great hardships to undergo the voyage that would lead to the discovery of the New World. Pope Leo XIII, on the 400th anniversary (1892) of that famous voyage, wrote of Columbus in Quarto Abeunte Saeculo:

By his toil another world emerged from the unsearched bosom of the ocean: hundreds of thousands of mortals have, from a state of blindness, been raised to the common level of the human race, reclaimed from savagery to gentleness and humanity; and, greatest of all, by the acquisition of those blessings of which Jesus Christ is the author, they have been recalled from destruction to eternal life.

Indeed, Columbus Day holds a special significance for Catholics, because it marks the beginning of the transformation of the Americas from a landscape of unbridled savagery, reaching its demonic apotheosis in the mass human sacrifices carried out by the Aztecs, to a hemisphere consecrated to Christ. Leo’s words also remind us of a truth that has been forgotten by some, rejected by others, and denounced in the modern and post-modern world, even by many Catholics: that without the light of the Gospels and incorporation into the mystical body of Christ (which is the Church), salvation is impossible to attain.

[Read the whole thing]

This pantload of PC crap was making its way around Facebook the other day:




UPDATE (12 October 2010)
See also Don McClarey's Columbus Day post at The American Catholic: Pope Leo XIII on Christopher Columbus

The Last Refuge of a Liberal

Charles Krauthammer writes:

Liberalism under siege is an ugly sight indeed. Just yesterday it was all hope and change and returning power to the people. But the people have proved so disappointing. Their recalcitrance has, in only 19 months, turned the predicted 40-year liberal ascendancy (James Carville) into a full retreat. Ah, the people, the little people, the small-town people, the "bitter" people, as Barack Obama in an unguarded moment once memorably called them, clinging "to guns or religion or" -- this part is less remembered -- "antipathy toward people who aren't like them."

[...]

Note what connects these issues. In every one, liberals have lost the argument in the court of public opinion. Majorities -- often lopsided majorities -- oppose President Obama's social-democratic agenda (e.g., the stimulus, Obamacare), support the Arizona law, oppose gay marriage and reject a mosque near Ground Zero.

What's a liberal to do? Pull out the bigotry charge, the trump that preempts debate and gives no credit to the seriousness and substance of the contrary argument. The most venerable of these trumps is, of course, the race card.

[...]

It is a measure of the corruption of liberal thought and the collapse of its self-confidence that, finding itself so widely repudiated, it resorts reflexively to the cheapest race-baiting (in a colorful variety of forms). Indeed, how can one reason with a nation of pitchfork-wielding mobs brimming with "antipathy toward people who aren't like them" -- blacks, Hispanics, gays and Muslims -- a nation that is, as Michelle Obama once put it succinctly, "just downright mean"?

The Democrats are going to get beaten badly in November. Not just because the economy is ailing. And not just because Obama over-read his mandate in governing too far left. But because a comeuppance is due the arrogant elites whose undisguised contempt for the great unwashed prevents them from conceding a modicum of serious thought to those who dare oppose them.

[Read the whole thing]

Teen Suspended for Bringing Rosary to School

Check out the reasoning:

A devout Catholic teenager was suspended for the crime of bringing his rosary beads to school. The school claimed it could be showing gang affiliation or endangering “the safety, health, morals or welfare of himself or others”.

[...]

Yeah, this kid belongs to a gang all right. It’s called “the Catholic Church”, and those thugs are dangerous. They’ll shank you if you don’t watch your back!

In all seriousness, how could rosary beads, of all things, endanger the morals of others? The health and safety part will obviously get the typical school administration double-speak about how they could offend some poor non-Christian and cause violence (just like wearing the American flag on Cinco de Mayo!). But morals?! I really want to know where they got that one from. One would think that being a devout Catholic, and showing it by wearing rosary beads, would speak well to this boy’s morals. But not at this high school!

[More]

(emphasis added)

An Ecumenicism I Can Support

Christian, Muslim, Jew, Buddhist, Shintoist, Wiccan, Animist, whatever. Fine is fine, and fit is fit.

And make no mistake: the new Miss USA, Rima Fakih, is smokin' hot, notwithstanding whatever her religion may be. In this instance, I'm ALL for ecumenicism.

The Anchoress has more.

(Hat tip: Opinionated Catholic)

Ralph McInerny and the Tragedy of Notre Dame

George Weigel eulogizes Ralph McInerny (and the Notre Dame that no longer exists):

... Ralph McInerny was arguably the most distinguished scholar ever to work at Notre Dame. His scholarly publications outstrip those of other Notre Dame philosophers by orders of magnitude—and that’s before we get to his popular fiction, his magazine work, and his encouraging of generations of younger Catholic academics. Yet a university that does not hesitate to boast of its accomplishments as measured by the U.S. News and World Report ratings seemed curiously reticent about celebrating the life and accomplishments of Ralph McInerny. The university Web site posted a nicely written obituary three days after his death, but there was little sense in the university’s official recognition of its loss that a gigantic figure had left the scene.

One cannot help suspect that this has something to do with the fact that Ralph thought Notre Dame had gone off the rails in its dogged and relentlessly self-promoting attempts to measure itself against what it likes to term “peer schools,” such as Dartmouth and Yale. What Ralph understood, and what the man who brought him to Notre Dame, the legendary Father Theodore Hesburgh, has never seemed to understand, is that that’s the wrong plumb-line by which to measure a Catholic university’s accomplishment. Or indeed any university’s accomplishment, given the intellectual chaos, political correctness, decadence, and madcap trendiness that has afflicted those “peer schools” since the late Sixties.

Ralph McInerny knew, and could demonstrate with acute philosophical rigor, that there are truths built into the world and into us: truths we can know by exercising the arts of reason; truths that, known, lay certain moral obligations on us, personally and in our civic lives. With the rarest of exceptions, they don’t know that, and in fact they deny that, at the “peer schools” to which Notre Dame is addicted to comparing itself. And therein lay the tragedy of Notre Dame and Catholic institutions of higher education of a similar cast of mind, as Ralph saw it: they had sold their intellectual and moral birthright—the true excellence that comes from an immersion in the Great Tradition of western higher learning—for a mess of pottage.

I’ve long thought that all of this had something to do with the misreading of a 1955 essay by Father John Tracy Ellis, “American Catholics and the Intellectual Life,” which justifiably criticized the shabby condition of too much of Catholic higher education in the United States in those days. Father Hesburgh and others influenced by one reading of Ellis’s critique decided that the thing to do was for Notre Dame to become Harvard, so to speak. Ralph McInerny thought that this didn’t make much sense at a time when those “peer schools” were awash in pragmatism and utilitarianism. Rather, he believed (and I think this was the more accurate reading of Ellis) that Notre Dame and other premier Catholic universities should play to strength, emphasizing a demanding liberal arts education while bringing the best of the mid-20th century Catholic philosophical, theological and literary renaissance to bear in the U.S. Doing that, Catholic universities would model a form of higher learning that was truth-centered, character-building, and life-inspiring...

(Hat tip: Don McClarey)


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Notre Shame Fails the "Catholic" Test Yet Again

Ralph McInerny (1929-2010) [UPDATED]

Prof. Freddoso's Introduction to What Happened to Notre Dame? - Part 2: Why the Catholic Faithful WERE Scandalized

Prof. Freddoso's Introduction to What Happened to Notre Dame? - Part 1: "Why I Was Not Scandalized"

What Happened to Notre Dame?

Coming to the Supreme Court: "Religious Liberty’s Battle of Hastings"

At Southern Appeal, Quin Hilyer reports on an important religious liberty case that will be coming before the Supreme Court this spring:

Imagine a law school that refuses to recognize a Christian student group because it requires its officers to be… yes, Christian. We at the Washington Times editorialized on it today. More on the case available here. A key paragraph from the masterful lead brief for the Christian Legal Society by the peerless Michael McConnell is here:

A “variety of viewpoints” is far more likely to beachieved when students are allowed to sort themselves out by interest and viewpoint—Republicans in one club, Democrats in another; Muslims in one organization, Lutherans in another. Without such sorting, all viewpoints are blurred. The Democratic Caucus becomes the Bipartisan Caucus; the Christian, Jewish, and Muslim clubs become the Ecumenical Society; and every other group organized around a belief becomes a Debate Club. Each group becomes no more than its own diverse forum—writ small. The all-comers rule thus defeats the very purpose of recognizing any group as a group in the first place. Preventing students from organizing around shared beliefs does not foster a robust or diverse exchange of views.

This is a crucially important case. Free speech, free religion, and free association all hang in the balance.

(Hat tip: Opinionated Catholic)

Pope Critical of Labour’s "Unjust" Equality Laws Ahead of UK Visit

From The Telegraph:

Benedict XVI claimed that legislation introduced by Labour to end discrimination “actually violates natural law” as it stops worshippers remaining true to their beliefs.

He said that rather than making society more equal, the Government's new rules limit religious freedom.

His strongly-worded intervention in British politics comes after leaders of both the Roman Catholic Church and Church of England clashed with Labour over its flagship Equality Bill, which they fear will make them admit homosexuals to the priesthood or face prosecution for discriminating against them.

In an address delivered on Monday to 35 Catholic bishops from England and Wales, the pope attacked the implications of Labour’s equality laws.

He said: “Your country is well known for its firm commitment to equality of opportunity for all members of society. Yet... the effect of some of the legislation designed to achieve this goal has been to impose unjust limitations on the freedom of religious communities to act in accordance with their beliefs."

He went on: "In some respects it actually violates the natural law upon which the equality of all human beings is grounded and by which it is guaranteed."

[More]

The dictatorship of relativism was quick to go on the offensive in attacking the Holy Father:

... Speaking at a meeting of the European Parliament's Socialists and Democrats in Rome, Stephen Hughes criticised Pope Benedict's concern that the Equality Bill would restrict religious groups from acting in accordance with their faith.

'As a Catholic, I am appalled by the attitude of the Pope. Religious leaders should be trying to eradicate inequality, not perpetuate it,' Hughes said in a statement reproduced on his website. 'Instead of criticising the UK's plans to improve its legislation, the Pope should ensure that existing EU legislation is properly applied in the Vatican,' Hughes said.

The Pope, who announced the first papal visit to Britain since 1982 on Monday, urged Bishops from England and Wales to make a convincing case against legislation that could force churches to hire homosexuals or transsexuals. He said the legislation violates natural law and told the visiting bishops they should fight it with 'missionary zeal.' Human Rights groups have hit back at the Pope's comments...

Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Same-Sex "Marriage" and Religious Liberty

Bork Predicts “Terrible Conflict” Will Endanger U.S. Catholics’ Religious Freedom

Same-Sex "Marriage" and the Persecution of Civil Society

InsideCatholic on "The Unintended Consequences of Gay Marriage"

Secularist Attacks on the Catholic Church in Britain

Regular Guy Paul on What's Next for Same-Sex "Marriage"

Catholic Provocation?

Federal Judge: Catholic Church’s Position Against Homosexual Adoptions Justifies Government Hostility Towards Church

San Francisco's Hateful Anti-Catholic Resolution Prompts Lawsuit by Thomas More Center

Catholic League Says Gay Adoption Issue Spurring Anti-Catholic Bigotry

9th Circuit Rules Okay to Censor Terms "Marriage" and "Family Values" as Hate Speech

UK Catholic Schools Endangered by Sexual Orientation Regulations

Official Anti-Catholic Bigotry Returns to British Parliament

"A Charter for Suing Christians"

A Catholic Londoner on "The Last Acceptable Prejudice"

British Bishops: U.K. Sex Equality Law "Threatens Catholic Adoption Agencies"

UK: Churches "Could be Forced to Bless Gay Weddings"

The Coming Persecution of Churches Over "Gay Marriage"

The Coming Conflict Between Same-Sex "Marriage" and Religious Liberty

Democrat Iconoclasm

Matthew Archbold reports that the Obama Administration is considering forcing faith-based recipients of federal money to cover or hide religious iconography:

According to OnFaith blog, Obama's faith council is debating forcing religious charities to cover up any and all religious icons if they receive federal funding.

OnFaith reports:

Obama's faith council is finalizing its draft report this week, and one of the key debates that emerged from the phone conference yesterday was whether there should be rules requiring religious groups to cover up religious symbols if they receive federal funding for services. For example, if a church gets money for a soup kitchen, would it have to remove or put a cloth over all crosses, pictures, etc., every time it gets ready to feed the hungry?

[...]

So remember when Obama said he decided to continue President Bush's funding of faith based organizations, I'm pretty sure that this White House continued it only so that the money could be used as a Trojan Horse that could destroy or at least secularize religious organizations.

My Comments:
Just more proof that, for all its bluster about reaching out to people of faith in the last election cycle, the Democrat Party remains openly hostile to, or at the very least, very uncomfortable with, overt demonstrations of religious faith.

Nostalgic for the Crusades?

As Brad Miner notes at The Catholic Thing, Baylor University historian Rodney Starks has a new book that makes the case in favor of the Crusades:

Pray for me, folks, because I’m nostalgic for the Crusades.

Of course a twenty-first-century fellow can’t really be nostalgic for the eleventh or twelfth centuries, since nostalgia properly means severe homesickness, a yearning for familiar conditions from a prior period in our own lives. But there’s a secondary meaning: a wistful longing for a lost dominion. I’m idealistically attracted – as perhaps I should be – to the qualities of the knight, such as honor and bravery, and incautiously suppose – as no doubt I shouldn’t – that these qualities arose in a time and in places congenial to virtue. Chivalry! The Crusades! Something to fight for! Where the heck are my sword and my steed?

If the Crusades ever evoked appreciation – and they did – that particular lost dominion took a pretty serious blow on September 16, 2001 when in an Oval Office speech George W. Bush said: “This crusade, this war on terrorism is gonna take awhile.” The press swooned and Muslim sensibilities were outraged, encouraged perhaps by the media swarf. That’s a mere eight years ago, but the Crusades – their reputation already foundering in the multicultural chop – have all but sunk into the black hole of politically correct disdain. Even “Kingdom of Heaven,” Ridley Scott’s 2005 film about the Third Crusade, failed to make the great expedition very interesting. Many saw the film as a scolding commentary on Crusader Bush.

Enter historian Rodney Stark, riding my missing horse. His new book, God’s Battalions, is actually subtitled: The Case for the Crusades. And he makes the case! With admirable frankness and flair. He writes that the prevailing wisdom about the Crusades may indeed be that “an expansionist, imperialistic Christendom brutalized, looted, and colonized a tolerant and peaceful Islam,” but Stark’s next words are telling:

“Not so.”

Professor Stark (Baylor University) emphasizes that the onset of hostilities between Christians and Muslims long pre-dated the Crusades. We too often forget that for six centuries after the Resurrection there was no Islam and much of northern Africa and what we now call the Middle East were Christian or pagan. But from the beginning of Muhammad’s public life – and especially after his death in 632 – his followers began making war on just about everybody, and within a century Islam had swallowed up most of that eastern territory and by 1095 – when the First Crusade left Europe for the Holy Land – the Byzantine Empire, Christendom’s eastern bastion, was in grave peril of conquest, which is why the emperor, Alexius Comnenus, wrote to Pope Urban II telling horror stories about Muslim atrocities against Christians and begging for military aid from Europe.

Islam, according to the historical record as Stark presents it, is a “religion of peace” mostly in the sense that it seeks to subdue and unify the people it conquers. True, the Qur’an forbids forced conversions, but in practice this has meant that “subject peoples were ‘free to choose’ conversion as an alternative to death or enslavement.” And to be fair, in some places – Spain (Al-Andalus) is a good example – Christians and Jews might live in relative peace, since the Muslim ruling class sequestered itself, paying little attention to subject people (dhimmis) except at tax time. To many in southern and eastern Europe, Muslim expansion began to seem all but unstoppable . . . until it stopped. Christians fought back. Constantinople was able to hold off its invaders in several successful sea battles. Charles Martel defeated a Muslim force in what would become France. The Reconquista began in Spain, and in 1094 the legendary El Cid defeated an Islamic army at Valencia. Islam was in retreat.

With the letter from Alexius in hand, Urban II exhorted Christians to come to the aid of their besieged and battered co-religionists in the east, and 35,000 answered the call.

[More]

Boston College Law School in Disarray Over Prof’s Defense of Marriage

The Cardinal Newman Society reports:

On September 15, 2009, StandForMarriageMaine.com released a television ad which featured Scott Fitzgibbon, a professor at Boston College Law School, arguing in defense of marriage between one man and one woman. He encouraged Maine voters to vote “yes” on an upcoming ballot referendum which aims to overturn state legislation which legalized homosexual “marriage” last May.

Complaints from fellow faculty members at Boston College soon began piling up. Merely one day after the ad aired, Boston College Law Dean John Garvey issued a letter to the BC law community, writing, “Several of you have contacted my office to express your anger at Scott’s actions, and it is hard for me to see any of our students, faculty, or staff offended or hurt by the words of others.”

Rather than praising Fitzgibbon’s public defense of a Catholic teaching, Dean Garvey wrote that Fitzgibbon’s “public statements represent his own opinions. . . and do not state any official position of Boston College Law School.” [ED.: Huh? These are NOT merely Prof. Fitzgibbon's "own opinions", but ARE, in fact, the "official position" of the Catholic Church of which Boston College purports to be a part.] Garvey defended Fitzgibbons’ participation in the advertisement but also seemed to welcome faculty opposition to Catholic teaching.”

We also have faculty members who hold a contrary view, which they too are free to express publicly,” he wrote. “Many have done so while referring to themselves as BC Law professors. One of them has publicly led the fight to oppose the Solomon Amendment on the grounds that it is an affront to gay and lesbian students and prospective members of the U.S. military. Others have taken controversial positions on such subjects as abortion, euthanasia, and the treatment of detainees.”

Three days after Fitzgibbon’s pro-traditional marriage ad aired, a group of 76 “Individual Faculty and Administrators at Boston College Law School”, including Dean Garvey, issued the following statement: “The undersigned members of the faculty and administration at Boston College Law School feel that it is important to reaffirm our belief in the equality of all of our students. We are proud of the fact that Boston College Law School was one of the first law schools in the country to include sexual orientation in its non-discrimination pledge, and we reaffirm our commitment to making our institution a welcome and safe place for all students, including LGBT students.”

(emphasis and editorial commentary)

Law, Free Will, Choice, and Guns

Darwin Catholic (who, along with his lovely wife, Mrs. Darwin, will be meeting me for dinner and drinks tonight in Columbus) has an insightful post today at The American Catholic: "Law, Free Will, Choice and… Guns".

Creative Minority Report's "March to Madness"

Patrick Archbold of Creative Minority Report gives us some bracketology that really matters by identifying the Top 64 People Destroying Our Culture.

Catholic Actor Jon Voight Announces His Retirement from Acting in a Washington Times Op/Ed

The Cranky Conservative has the details.

In Hollywood, critizing Barack Obama and openly supporting Republicans = "announcing his retirement from acting".

Blacklists for brazen commies and their fellow-traveling sympathizers ... bad.

Blacklists for outspoken conservative and/or Republican actors ... good.

McDonald's Says Traditional Christian View of Marriage "Motivated by Hate" ...

... emanating from the chief bigot in Rome. (I made that part up, but it follows naturally from the argument.)

Regular Guy Paul has the details.

"Post-Racial" Political Correctness

(Hat tip: The Opinionated Catholic)

Rod Dreher has links to a couple of interesting pieces on race. The first one is a Wall Street Journal piece by Dorothy Rabinowitz: "American Politics Aren't 'Post-Racial' ".

The second story is one I also heard about on the radio this morning, derided by a couple of local DJs for its run-amok political correctness: "Toddlers who dislike spicy food 'racist' ".

Thomas More Law Center Takes Case of University of Toledo Administrator Fired for Criticizing Gay Rights; Alleges First Amendment Violation

(Hat tip: Dave Hartline at The Catholic Report)

From Catholic News Agency:

Ann Arbor, May 26, 2008 / 03:24 pm (CNA).- An administrator at the University of Toledo who was fired for writing an editorial objecting to the comparison of homosexual rights to the civil rights struggles of African Americans and expressing her Christian views against homosexuality has accused the university of violating her First Amendment rights when it terminated her employment earlier this month.

Crystal Dixon, former associate vice president of human resources at the state-run University of Toledo, argued in an April 18 column in the Toledo Free Press that those “choosing the homosexual lifestyle” should not be considered “civil rights victims.” Dixon, who did not identify herself in the column as a university administrator, said that while she cannot change her identity as a black woman, “thousands of homosexuals make a life decision to leave the gay lifestyle.”

She also quoted two passages from the Bible, one concerning the nature of marriage and another saying that one should hate the sin but love the sinner.

Following a decision by the university to fire her for her views, Dixon spoke to a group of about 60 people at her church, the End Time Christian Fellowship, saying the issue is not the correctness of her beliefs but whether she is free to express them.

“This is a matter of principle, plain and simple,” she said.

Thomas A. Sobecki, Dixon’s attorney, said she was fired from her job “because she exercised her right to free speech… She spoke about something certain people at the university disagreed with.”

“She doesn't want to sue; she'd rather be working right now,” he said.

Dixon has also retained for her defense the Thomas More Law Center, an Ann Abor-based organization which says it is “dedicated to the defense and promotion of the religious freedom of Christians.”

“Essentially she was fired for being a Christian,” argued Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center.

“Crystal Dixon is a courageous Christian woman whom we are privileged to represent,” Thompson continued. “The University of Toledo brags about being friendly to ‘lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and questioning individuals.’ They apparently are also proud of their hostility toward Christians.”

“Where is the so-called free expression of ideas that universities so adamantly defend in other contexts?” he said.

Crystal Dixon has launched a web site at www.crystaldixon.com, “Crystal Dixon: Faith and Free Speech Defender,” to explain her story and to ask for donations.

My Comments:
Typical university mentality: tolerance for me, but not for thee.

On a somewhat related matter, several recent graduates* of Norwalk St. Paul High School are headed to University of Toledo this fall. I know for a fact that at least some of them are quite serious about their Faith. I hope the atmosphere of political correctness at U of Toledo doesn't negatively impact these young peoples' spiritual worldview, but instead challenges them to stand up for their Catholic principles. (And let's just pray that a certain "Catholic theologian" at U of Toledo doesn't "challenge" their Faith in other ways.)


* I LOVE the photo of the guys smoking stogies, by the way.

"Outlawed Tunes on Outlawed Pipes"

The "yes-we're-relevant" busybodies in the European Union are, in effect, engaging in the sort of ethnic and cultural cleansing of the Scots that the English engaged in up through the 18th century.

Patrick Archbold has the details at Creative Minority Report.

Is the Cafeteria "Open"?

Is Gerald Augustinus' cafeteria "open"?

I'm not going to make a judgment on that. But neither am I willing to condemn Gerald as others commenting at his blog have done. I believe Gerald does a great deal of good with his blog, even where I disagree with him (such as on this particular issue and on immigration reform, for example); and the sort of pronouncements of "heresy" and threats to report him to the Catholic League that are taking place at his blog are unwarranted hyperbole. (Let's hope Bill Donohue has bigger fish to fry than what someone has written at his blog.)

Suffice it to say that I think Gerald may be somewhat misguided by an admirable desire to defend the downtrodden and marginalized, but at the expense of the Natural Law and the age-old teachings of Holy Mother Church. And I am troubled by his willingness to give short shrift to how public policy should be guided by Natural Law (i.e. generally applicable) principles, as well as by his seeming dismissal of the Church's call for the "recognition and promotion of the natural structure of the family – as a union between a man and a woman based on marriage – and its defense from attempts to make it juridically equivalent to radically different forms of union which in reality harm it and contribute to its destabilization, obscuring its particular character and its irreplaceable social role" in favor of egalitarian and/or libertarian aims.

And, if what has happened in Canada and the U.K. (and some parts of the U.S. - see, e.g., Catholic Charities adoption services in Boston and San Francisco) are any indication, I'm also concerned that it ignores the prospect of marginalizing the Church that could accrue from the government's recognizing certain relationships as equal to marriage in the law.

This is definitely a topic that demands, above all, charity and a willingness to listen to what other people are actually saying, and not engaging in homophobia, the distortion of others' points of views, or the creation of strawmen. And, as Christians, we are called to give others the benefit of the doubt and not engage in namecalling or ex parte excommunications. For examples of charitable discussion reflecting the Church's position, see the responses to Gerald's post by Fr. RP, "Rick", and the always thoughtful Christopher Blosser.

I'm posting this because I think it is an interesting discussion. But any comments that I believe cross the line of charitable dialogue will be deleted, and may lead to my closing off comments to this post altogether.

More Offensive Cartoons at University of Virginia?

Anybody know what this and this and this and this is all about? I'd appreciate any knowledge as to what the offensive cartoons in the student paper at my alma mater consisted of.

Thanks in advance.


UPDATE
Looks like the Catholic League is back on the story:

THE HYPOCRITES ARE BACK AT UVA

March 14, 2008

Today’s issue of the University of Virginia’s student paper, The Cavalier Daily, featured a cartoon depicting a naked man smoking a cigarette in bed. Standing beside the bed, a woman in her underwear buttons up her shirt and asks, “Come on God, be honest—Did you really get a vasectomy? I can’t let Joseph find out about this.” The man replies, “Well, Mary, you’re F***ed.” Yesterday’s paper ran a comic portraying a crucified Jesus telling jokes onstage.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue had this to say:

“The hate-mongers typically come out of the woods in the days leading up to Holy Week. Easter can’t come and go without someone taking aim at Christianity. This has been a relatively tame Lent thus far. Until, that is, The Cavalier Daily decided to once again dip into the well of bigotry.

“In the Fall of 2006, we wrote to the paper requesting an apology for cartoons that mocked the crucifixion and indicated that the Virgin Mary had an ‘Immaculately Transmitted’ venereal disease. (This apology was originally denied, though eventually the vile cartoons were removed from the paper’s website and a statement of regret was posted.) And now The Cavalier Daily has returned to its old tricks, just as we approach the holiest time of the Christian calendar.

“Even more telling of the attitude of those at the University of Virginia’s paper is the hypocrisy at play. Today’s issue also shows a cartoon that acknowledges that any and all depictions of the Muslim prophet Muhammed are banned. Last year, the paper’s editorial board forced a cartoonist to resign after the campus chapter of the NAACP objected to a cartoon mocking Ethiopians. And in 2005, the paper was quick to apologize to homosexuals for remarking that the crane is the ‘gayest-looking of all birds.’

“It’s clear that there’s a double-standard at play in the offices of The Cavalier Daily. Tell the paper’s editor to afford Christians the same consideration shown to blacks, Muslims and homosexuals.”

Write to Elizabeth Mills at editor@cavalierdaily.com

Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
UVA Cartoon Update: "Protest Defeats Blasphemy at University of Virginia"

Back To School: Christian Bashing at UVa

Catholics Want Apology for Anti-Christian Cartoons

Update on UVa Anti-Christian Cartoon Controversy

Update: UVA Paper Apologizes for Mohammed, Not Jesus

UVA's Cavalier Daily Pulls Anti-Christian Comics