Bill Donohue: The Bully’s TV Pulpit


In an election year in which three presidential candidates force voters to deal with real bigotry, in the forms of misogyny, racism and ageism, Americans are looking within their hearts, facing generational fears, seeking a less divisive way to discuss issues on which we disagree. More often than not, mainstream media is no help — over-simplifying issues, over-emphasizing demographics, or worse, stoking the flames of hate with talking heads that shed no light but bring plenty of heat, contributing to division not healing. Old ways die hard.

Bill Donohue, of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, is one such all heat, no light cable television guest. Donohue claims to protect Catholics from anti-Catholic bigotry. In reality, he manufactures controversies, bullies political opponents, and insults people with a world view different from his. This "defender of religious and civil rights" routinely defames Jews, Muslims, gays, and women — all in the name of Jesus, and believing that he is protecting American values.

In a 43-page report released Monday, The Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights: Neither Religious, Nor Civil, Catholics for Choice documents a pattern of media and political manipulation by Donohue, his organization, and his supporters. His base of support comes from the most politicized leaders of the Catholic hierarchy, including Cardinal Egan, and a board that reads like a Who’s Who of partisan Republican politics (L. Brent Bozell III, Alan Keyes, Kate O’Beirne, Linda Chavez, Kenneth Whitehead, Lawrence Kudlow, Thomas Monaghan, William Simon, Jr.). Far from protecting Catholics from bigotry, Donohue plays the victim card to advance a narrow, socially conservative, hierarchical and patriarchal political view.

"Bill Donohue is a punk and a bully," says Jon O’Brien, President of Catholics for Choice. "His style is more suited to being in the ring of the World Wrestling Federation than a television studio. Donohue is hiding a political and social agenda that has nothing to do with anti-defamation, and nothing to do with Catholicism."

The report details the history of the Catholic League, its manipulative tactics, alleged successes, and exaggerated membership.

The pattern that emerges from the study demonstrates that Donohue:

  • Manufactures controversy
  • Attempts to intimidate enemies
  • Bullies the opposition
  • Complains "early and often"
  • Attacks popular culture
  • Attempts to silence the loyal opposition


With numerous and detailed examples reaching back more than a decade, the report demonstrates Donohue’s success at creating controversy around films like Priest and television shows like Nothing Sacred, which simply wrestled with common social issues within Catholic settings, threatening advertisers by taking out full-page ads promising boycotts. His most recent media manipulation was over the very serious threat to Christianity posed by a Chocolate Jesus.

But Donohue has different standards for how hard he fights when it comes to his friends. Perhaps the only real anti-Catholic bigotry in recent memory, that Donohue could have genuinely used his bombast against, is the Rev. John Haggee, a supporter of Sen. John McCain. From the report:

Even when 2008 Republican presidential candidate John McCain was endorsed by Rev. John Hagee—a notorious anti-Catholic bigot—Donohue’s criticism was easily muted. Initially he condemned McCain’s embrace of Hagee, noting that the pastor’s descriptions of the Catholic church included phrases like “the Great Whore” an “apostate church,” the “anti-Christ” and a “false cult system.” But unlike his merciless attacks on Kerry and other Democratic candidates, Donohue simply called for McCain to “retract his embrace of Hagee.” After several days, McCain issued a pseudo-apology: “I repudiate any comments that are made, including Pastor Hagee’s, if they are anti-Catholic or offensive to Catholics.” Donohue’s reaction?: “As far as the Catholic League is concerned, this case is closed.” This response is in marked contrast to his treatment of Democratic candidates.

 

No full page ads. No demands the media expose Rev. Hagee in weeks of looping cable coverage as they did Rev. Jeremiah Wright. No, when it came to someone calling Catholicism a "whore-religion," Bill Donohue was about as silent as it is possible for him to be. "There is no doubt that, if you look at the list of targets Donohue has
chosen over the years, they play partisan favorites in many ways,"
O’Brien says. "This is no where close to being a Catholic
anti-defamation league." As the report suggests, Catholic candidate John Kerry didn’t get off so easliy in 2004 — and all he did was express honest political views that differed from Donohue’s.

From the report:

As John M. Swomley, a noted researcher on the religious right said, the Catholic League “redefines religious and civil rights as opposites to those normally understood as constitutional rights.” In other words, an individual’s freedom of speech or expression is trumped by Donohue’s right not to be offended by speech that challenges his brittle worldview.

The report continues:

… Donohue’s rhetoric insists that: a) non-Catholics have no right to participate in this debate and any non-Catholics who do so are inherently anti-Catholic (this despite the widespread influence that the Catholic church has in society at large on non-Catholics through its provision of education and health care, and vigorous lobbying of public officials on issues of concern to the church, such as abortion); and b) Catholics who engage in such debate are by definition “bad” Catholics who are out to destroy the church and therefore have no legitimate role in the debate.

Catholics for Choice hopes that the report will serve as a "wake up call" to the media, says O’Brien. He acknowledges that changes in news consumption habits and economic factors challenge mainstream media. But, says O’Brien, "they can at least control for quality. Most people want to leave a program knowing more at the end than when you sat down to watch, and with Donohue you always know less. Conservative talk radio and Fox News pioneered this type of interview as entertainment and too many producers followed their lead."

Donohue recently took aim at new media, targeting RH Reality Check’s own Amanda Marcotte, author of It’s a Jungle Out There: The Feminist Survival Guide to Politically Inhospitable Environments. Marcotte famously left the John Edwards for President campaign after Donohue criticized a blog post she’d written six months earlier on Pandagon, before being affiliated with the campaign.

"Bill Donohue conflated genuine critique of dogma in a political context with prejudice against believers, most of whom also disagree with that dogma," Marcotte said.

Marcotte learned of Donohue’s attack when AP reporter Nedra Picker asked her to comment on a Catholic League press release. "Fifteen minutes after she asked for my comment, the story was on the wire, indicating she never had any intention of getting my side," says Marcotte. "I’ve since learned she has a reputation for brainlessly publishing right wing press releases as though they were facts. Frankly, I was impressed by how easy the character assassination was for Donohue, and how complicit mainstream media was."

"I’m an astute defender of religious liberty. It was clear to me that Donohue was offended by a critique of Catholic teachings, but it is morally bankrupt to equate that with anti-Catholic bigotry. I don’t agree with everything in the Koran, but that doesn’t mean I’m bigoted toward Muslims," Marcotte says.

Where was Donohue’s outrage for the six months the post in question had been published? Why did he wait until Marcotte was affiliated with Sen. John Edwards campaign to raise the issue?

For Marcotte, and fellow blogger/Donohue target Melissa McEwan, Donohue’s publicity stunt turned even uglier after the national media frenzy. Threats of sexual violence and death filled their email boxes, including two threats so serious they were turned over to the FBI. One Donohue devotee went so far as to pound violently on McEwan’s front door for ten minutes.

These are the very real results of Bill Donohue’s tactics. Not only does he inspire others to make threats, he also carries with him an aura of violence. The report explains that former Catholics for Choice President Frances Kissling "admitted that after a few run-ins with Donohue she
didn’t want to appear with him because she felt threatened by him: ‘He
never physically threatened me, but I felt like I was in the presence
of an abuser,’ she said."

And Mark Silk, director of Trinity College’s
Center for the Study of Religion in Public Life, told CFC, “He’s a thug. He reverts to bullying because he thinks that’s
what the job entails.”

Donohue seems to drop even the pretense of anti-defamation concerns when he speaks of other religions. The report quotes Donohue:

“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.” (Scarborough Country, Dec. 8, 2004)

“Now, in this country, we are civilized. We don’t appreciate it when somebody sticks it to you in the name of freedom of speech, sir. We condemn it. But over there, they take the uncivilized approach. And then they wonder why so many people don’t trust the Muslims when it comes to liberty, because they will abuse it.” (Scarborough Country, Feb. 9, 2006)

By no means does Bill Donohue, or the Catholic League, represent the views of most Catholics. "For most Catholics, this sort of extremist discourse has no relation to their life," O’Brien says. "Catholics are not jumping up and down because there is no need for anti-defamation as there once was. Catholics in good conscience ignore Donohue, just as in good conscience most use contraception, vote pro-choice, and get along with their neighbors of different faiths."

In the report, a priest says it best:

“As a Christian, a Catholic priest, I stand in opposition to any and all hateful speech used by anyone, especially when they do so in the name of Jesus. I do not believe that one can claim to be a disciple of Jesus and at the same time deride, mock, insult, or threaten violence against another person… One cannot proclaim the love of Jesus while cursing one’s neighbor…To continually use hateful, crude, violent language is indicative of what dwells within one’s heart. Mr. Donohue speaks only for himself and not the Catholic church.” —Father Jeff Gatlain (John Amato, “A Catholic priest stands tall against Bill Donohue,” Crooks and Liars.com, April 5, 2007).

 

As Americans consider the issues that matter most in this presidential campaign, and look within their hearts to confront and resolve bias they may find toward women, people of color, senior citizens, or people of differing beliefs, sexual orientations, economic or educational status, it is critical to discern real bigotry from fake. We must use this election to see through the political and media manipulation, including the sort Bill Donohue has built his career on, and that social conservatives have used to hijack our democracy.

Mainstream media must look beyond the easy, entertaining aspects of bombastic television guests like Donohue, when in fact real bigotry does exist, and help shape a national dialog that brings us together as Americans. Media should make the effort toward "quality control", as O’Brien suggested, and include genuine intellectual tension between differing philosophies which is important in our democracy.

"Genuinely smart people like George Weigle and Kate O’Beirne who are capable of vigorous intellectual debate, but with whom I disagree," O’Brien says, "have their credibility called into question by lending it to such an extremist organization that uses such vile tactics. People don’t want screaming accusations and distortions." With Bill Donohue and the Catholic League, that’s all you get.

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

To schedule an interview with Scott Swenson please contact Communications Director Rachel Perrone at rachel@rhrealitycheck.org.

  • http://www.mtintouch.net invalid-0

    Lovely.
    He will be soon be more widely seen for the simple thug he is.
    And the MSM as the consistent conduit for hate speech, guised as Fair & Balanced that it so apparently has become.
    [Nedra Pickler as exemplar of the latter phenomenon.
    Both she and Donohue are fortunately altogether consistent.]

    Sad then, but getting better with such exposes as yours.
    Nice and…thanks.

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rulZOE8bDa8 invalid-0

    Sir, can you please state plainly the object of this loping verbal exercise? Was it an attempt to rehabilitate Marcotte? If so, I think that it would be profitable to repeat verbatim Marcotte’s “genuine critique of Catholic dogma.” You know, the high-minded “justify your misogyny with another fairy tale” and “hot, sticky white spirit” “critiques” that typify the kind of discourse you would like to have aired, rather than Donohue’s lowbrow approach . . . Of course, it was simply repeating what Marcotte had freely written that made her a “victim,” so I’d suppose you’d want to steer away from, you know, Marcotte’s own words.

    I’ll answer one of your questions which absolutely puzzles you for some reason – before being hired by a Presidential candidate, Marcotte was what she is now – a no-account blogger with no relevance to matters of public concern. Edwards made a horrible mistake, which was brought to his attention, and which he (not Donohue) rectified. But I suppose that Donohue could have waited until Edwards was the nominee to gain maximum partisan effect – something which you haven’t considered. Additionally, the fact that Marcotte has remained on the outside of the other Democratic campaigns ought to serve as an indication that Edwards, and indeed Donohue, were correct in their respective judgments.

    Considering the allegations leveled by Marcotte and McEwan – why is it so difficult to post .pdfs of the official law enforcement investigatory documents, redacting personally identifiable information and/or the sworn Affidavits of either Marcotte or McEwan? Wouldn’t that, at least, not require the neutral observer to rely entirely upon the dubious credibility of these women before making the superhuman leap to smearing Donohue with the content of e-mails authored by people over whom Donohue has no direct influence or control? I suppose smearing Donohue with these as yet unseen e-mails is consonant with the high level of discourse that you seek to maintain?

    Catholics for a Free Choice is anything but Catholic, and you are either complicit in a lie or in tremendous error – I shall disabuse you in two words: Humanae Vitae. It is of no surprise that the “right wing shills” who all support Donohue and his organization do not publicly reject Humanae Vitae, and other Encyclicals, Constitutions, Bulls, etc. The USCCB has made the statement that “CFFC is not a Catholic organization, does not speak for the Catholic Church, and in fact promotes positions contrary to the teaching of the Church as articulated by the Holy See and the NCCB.” It is a radical organization with the raison detre of sowing confusion concerning the Catholic position on certain moral issues, consistently misrepresenting that there is legitimate disagreement within the Church where there is none. Donohue is not Catholic because he is morally conservative, he is morally conservative because his beliefs are thoroughly orthodox.

    I have been aware of John Hagee for several years, for he has a regular television show. I’m a Catholic, and have watched it on more than a few occasions, and never saw the overt, explicit statements attributed to him. Is it not possible for a single Leftist to comb through Hagee’s years of hour-long broadcasts and produce the video evidence of his alleged virulent anti-Catholicism? Might it be that there is no there – there? Once again, innuendo and smear, with no evidence – which ought to be rather easy to compile if it existed in the first.

    Has CFFC named Bill O’Reilly, Michael Savage and Elizabeth Hasselbeck as victims of Donohue’s consistently partisan attacks? I suppose these names do not fit the narrative, but half-truths is your business, not mine.

    Finally, Bill Donohue is a former and forever United States Marine and a Korean War hero. Jon O’Brien would not have the temerity to call Donohue a “punk” to his face, nor before one of Donohue’s Marine brothers, myself included. This is the company you keep, and it would embarrass a man of honor.

  • scott-swenson

    Mr. Leamas:

     

    Men of honor do not defame people based on their beliefs as you have done and Mr. Donohue does, and most Marines I know in my family fought to preserve liberty and free thought. To answer your query, the object here was to point out that very fact, the critique is not of Mr. Donohue’s beliefs, but of his tactics; manipulation, bombast, threat, and innuendo, all of which are well documented in the Catholics for Choice report.

     

    As for Amanda Marcotte, she needs no rehabilitation. As one of the most read and successful people working in New Media, and a recently published humorist/author, her ideas and writing have a large audience. People understand politics and how trumped up charges by smear artists often mean good people get caught in the crossfire. Were this just a question of Mr. Donohue’s beliefs, Ms. Marcotte and I, and the good people at Catholics for Choice, would be among the first to defend him, even though we disagree. It is his tactics that are being called into the light here. I have no reason to doubt the veracity of any of the claims made and assume you can do further research if you believe them to be false.

     

    As for Catholics for Choice, they speak for the reality in the pews, the majority of believers who patiently await the hierarchy of the church’s arrival in the 21st Century with relevant positions on women, contraception, choice and affirming all God’s children regardless of sexuality. And frankly, I’m not the least bit surprised that you and Donohue have no problem with Hagee, though at least Donohue put up a minimal fuss to front for the media when first asked about it, you drop even that pretense. To pretend the Catholic League and Donohue are protecting Catholics from anti-Catholic bigotry and then to defend Rev. John Hagee seems to undercut everyone of your arguments.

     

    Since you said you’ve not seen it, here is Rev. Hagee at his bigoted best.


    Be the change you seek,

    Scott Swenson, Editor

  • brady-swenson

    Mr. Lemas,

    Here’s your evidence, in part. Please venture to type a few words into You Tube’s search engine if you feel the need to seek more. Donohue himself says he despises ‘the totality of what (Hagee) stands for, he’s been bashing Catholicism for decades and making a mountain of money over it.’

    It is important to note, as Scott Swenson and the Catholics for Choice report does, that while Donohue has on a few occasions publicly denounced Hagee’s rhetoric he has refrained from pulling out his big guns on him. We have seen Donohue’s big guns in action against John Kerry (see the CFC report, linked in the article), who is actually a practicing Catholic, and only minimal repudiation of John Hagee, a man who is very vocally anti-Catholic. I think the stark contrast between these reactions gets to the heart of the revelations in the CFC report.

  • invalid-0

    It sounds like “Catholics for a Free Choice” is angry that Bill Donohue is, well, effective and successful at what he does.

  • scott-swenson

    TS,

    If “by what he does” you mean manipulate media and pretend to be something he is not, an anti-defamation league, as the report suggests, then yes we’re in agreement. No one faults him for holding the views he does, it is still a free country, but bringing his tactics to light so that media other than Faux News understands the reality here is an important public service Catholics for Choice has done.


    Be the change you seek,

    Scott Swenson, Editor

  • invalid-0

    Effective and succesful? Effective at being a thug and a bullyboy? Perhaps. Succesful in convincing a bored media that what he has to says is news? Again, perhaps. But are these the lofty heights that we seek? I know shout TV and scream radio thrive on the ravings that Donohue excels in, but I’d prefer that political arguments rise above this and debate issues that really matter, not what some artist might want to say about our society’s obsession with religion.

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rulZOE8bDa8 invalid-0

    Sir, now you have accused me of “defaming” Marcotte. I’d like you to cite, verbatim, the libelous statements that I have made on this website constituting the alleged defamation. Most clearly, you don’t have a scintilla of a clue as to what “defamation” means. Quite simply, one cannot “defame” another by simply restating that person’s own words – unless you are now claiming, for the first time, that Marcotte never wrote them. Once again, I note well that you have refused to address these words and state how they exemplify better-than-Donohue discourse. I’m certain this is the new politics that Senator Obama has in mind, no? The fact of the matter is that Marcotte’s statements didn’t withstand the scrutiny of a fair public airing.

    The real defamation that is occurring is that which is addressed by Donohue – CFFC’s masquerade as a Catholic organization, knowingly and willfully misrepresenting Catholic moral teaching and theology, and fomenting discord within the Church for nefarious reasons.

    I suppose that you don’t find it at all ironic that you are attempting to smear Donohue with the alleged comments of unrelated third parties, and Frances Kissling’s innuendo, and other nonsense in an attempt to cause the media and others not to associate or correspond with him, all upon the justification that he does like bad things. You have cited some nobody explicitly calling Donohue a “punk.” (An epithet, you must understand, that refers to a male homosexual “bottom” in the prison environment). Would you care to explain why your ineffectual bullying is permitted, and how Donohue’s speech doesn’t rise to this level of discourse? I do hope you see the difference between attributing words of unrelated third persons to a man and attributing a person’s own words – to that person?

    Now, tell me, what exactly is the criticism again? That Donohue is a big bad bully, who voices his disagreements publicly, forcefully and unyieldingly? Or that Donohue didn’t sufficiently “bully” Hagee in this manner? Not surprisingly, your discordant verbal meanderings indicate that the correct answer is both. You’ve well been exposed, Mr. Swenson – it is not Donohue’s method with which you take issue (after all, your fellow travelers do far worse – the names of true victims sing out to you – Seligman, Evans, Finnerty), it is the Ox that he gores. Quite obviously, it is Donohue’s advocacy on behalf of the true Catholic Church and its unadulterated, orthodox Magisterium against attack that unnerves you – for your attempted meddling in the internal affairs of a Church to which you do not belong and a deposit of faith which you could not begin to understand is a clear “tell” to this effect.

    I’ll continue to doubt Marcotte’s honesty and integrity regarding all of those alleged threatening e-mails, for manifold reasons. But of course, those who call Marcotte’s honesty and integrity into question most vociferously are her fellow travelers, of which you ought to be aware. But I guess you are correct that she is successful in her own right – I guess we can’t all have the 46,000th most popular book on Amazon . . . just behind “A Short History of Earwax.”

    And I do believe that you have defamed me, Mr. Swenson. I did not “defend” Hagee – I merely asked for video or documentary evidence of his “GOD DAMN AMERICA” moment. And the best evidence that you can provide is an oblique reference to the “Roman Church,” which he traces to Genesis 10 (the Roman Catholic Church was founded by Christ, but this is not found in Genesis), and in which he never once uses the word Catholic or refers to the Pope or any other identifiable characteristic of the Church. And then your (husband?) “Brady” provides a nearly 6 minute clip with two short sentences from a book written by Hagee – with which you most likely agree on a substantive basis, and the rest of which is analysis highlighting Donohue as the most vehement critic of Hagee’s. My my, how convincing! At least Hagee’s “Whore of Babylon” trope permits that the Church and its faithful are sincere but wrong – Marcotte, of course, plainly stated that my Church is a two thousand year conspiracy to coerce her to do dishes and laundry. Now, I suppose this isn’t anti-Catholic at all? What about your “arrival into the 21st Century” characterization which, of course, is a soft-headed bromide – hyperbole meant to offend and alienate, but I’ll consider the source and give it exactly the weight that it deserves.

    Let us get something straight – Hagee isn’t going about desecrating the Eucharist in St. Patrick’s, or mocking a Catholic mass dressed as a transvestite Harlequin Nun – these are the brownshirt tactics of groups of agitators with which you find common cause, and of which you no doubt approve. Otherwise, I would have expected that you would be “defending” the Church against these assaults, even though you “disagree with the Church,” referring to your empty claim above. Only Donohue ventures into that breach, for which I am thankful and lend him my support. In the spirit of your brand of discourse, I’ll attribute those acts of violence and mockery to you, personally, and tack them to your hide if ever anyone chooses to consider you or your work worthy of public comment.

  • invalid-0

    It appears Donohue’s “Soft Touch” of Hagee worked:

    John Hagee, the controversial evangelical pastor who endorsed John McCain, will issue a letter of apology to Catholics today for inflammatory remarks he has made, including accusing the Roman Catholic Church of supporting Adolf Hitler and calling it “The Great Whore.” (See a copy of the letter PDF.)

    “Out of a desire to advance greater unity among Catholics and Evangelicals in promoting the common good, I want to express my deep regret for any comments that Catholics have found hurtful,” Hagee wrote, according to an advanced copy of the letter reviewed by Washington Wire. “After engaging in constructive dialogue with Catholic friends and leaders, I now have an improved understanding of the Catholic Church, its relation to the Jewish faith, and the history of anti-Catholicism.”

    In the letter, addressed to Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League and one of Hagee’s biggest critics, Hagee pledges “a greater level of compassion and respect for my Catholic brothers and sisters in Christ.”

    Mr. Donohue said in an interview on Tuesday that he was surprised by Mr. Hagee’s letter of regret: “Well, miracles do happen. If I wasn’t a believer before, I sure am now.”

    Mr. Hagee has recently held meetings with other Catholic leaders. But his chief opponent, Mr. Donohue, said that he had refused to meet with Mr. Hagee until Mr. Hagee issued an apology. The two men are now scheduled to meet on Thursday.

    “Republican activists have been working with him over the last several weeks, giving him books and articles and getting him up to speed and away from the black legends about the Catholic church,” Mr. Donohue said.

    “I have to assume he’s acting sincerely, and now understands” that he’s been accepting a lot of conspiracy theories, Mr. Donohue said.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/14/us/politics/14hagee.html?_r=1&ref=us&oref=slogin

    • invalid-0

      You seem like a really bitter person who just needs to take a deep breath and relax. For being “a no-account blogger with no relevance to matters of public concern”, this blog really has struck a chord with you, hasn’t it? Why don’t you and Bill Donahue get a cabin out in the woods together and not bother anybody since you love him so much??? Just a thought. Have a good one!

  • scott-swenson

    Given your assumptions about my faith and relationship with someone who shares my surname, I think it is safe to say that you are using many assumptions, though very eloquently, to make your obviously weak defense. I’ll allow that to stand as my rebuttal, because clearly you know not of what you speak. As to Rev. Hagee’s “retraction” I think it is fair to say that social conservatives recognize they have an almost impossible uphill battle after the failure of the past seven years, and expect people will be swallowing hard to do whatever they have to to confuse the electorate to try to win another term in the White House. Having lost their third heavily GOP seat in a special election tonight, in Mississippi no less, the people are speaking — VERY LOUDLY!

    Thanks for an entertaining exchange.


    Be the change you seek,

    Scott Swenson, Editor

  • scott-swenson

    And this just in, more evidence of the intimidation tactics (as witnessed above in comments from Donohue henchmen which seems to further prove the point of the CFC report) and smear tactics employed by the Catholic League, from the good people at Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR).

    Be the change you seek,

    Scott Swenson, Editor

  • scott-swenson

    Mr. Leamas,
    After all our heartfelt correspondence here you should know I don’t embarrass easily. I think that Hagee’s "confession" is wonderful, as well as being good for the soul. People should apologize when they’ve been hurtful and acknowledge when they are wrong. I eagerly await Mr. Donohue’s long list of apologies and regrets to those he has harmed, but won’t be holding my breath.

    The Hagee "confession" does reinforce some important aspects of the CFC report. For example, on the basic point that the Catholic League and your buddy Bill are shilling for the GOP, not an anti-defamation league. In the NYT article about Hagee’s regrets, Donohue is quoted saying,

    “Republican activists have been working with him over the last several
    weeks, giving him books and articles and getting him up to speed and
    away from the black legends about the Catholic Church. I have to assume
    he’s acting sincerely, and now understands” that he has been recycling
    conspiracy theories.

     

    This seems to be a bit of a confession from Donohue himself, or perhaps just an overzealous grab at reflected glory, taking credit in the media for something there was ENORMOUS political pressure on Hagee to do. That too would fit the pattern outlined in the CFC report.

    Your attempts at threats and intimidation in comments here have also proven those points about Donohue in the CFC report, though you’ve done them on Donohue’s behalf. Birds of a feather, and all that.

    Having learned the "soft touch" with Hagee, as you put it, perhaps you and buddy Bill might give that a try on others too? Or, again as the report points out, is that a tactic reserved only for those you are in league with politically? Since when is the Catholic Church a wholly owned subsidiary of the GOP, or is it the other way around? And what of Hagee and Donohue comments against others — why the more you look at this confession, the more it just underscores the truth of the CFC report.

    Thanks for helping Americans see through yet another bit of political contrivance aimed only at saving the GOP.

     

     

    Be the change you seek,

    Scott Swenson, Editor

  • amanda-marcotte

    I love people who seem to sincerely believe that the spittle covering their keyboard when they’re done ranting is a sign that they are totally convincing people this time around.

  • scott-swenson

    Here is one more great piece from the Washington Post’s On Faith section today. Anthony Stevens-Arroyo writes:

    The Catholic League is not the “All Catholic" League. It is not
    official Catholicism: still less does it speak for each and every one
    of the nation’s 60 million Catholics. As someone who once endeavored to
    work with the League, I was disappointed to learn that it is run out of
    a single office by a single ego. So, while I find newsworthy the recent
    exchanges between the League’s president, Bill Donahue and Evangelical
    pastor, John Hagee, they don’t amount to dogma.

     

    Be the change you seek,

    Scott Swenson, Editor

  • http://religionismanmade.blogspot.com invalid-0

    I really can’t understand why any wants a spokesperson who is as awfull as .

    You made an error in the link to The Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights: Neither Religious nor Civil