Yesterday Redux

I really thought I was done with the whole Marcotte thing yesterday. However, Michael Stickings had a few thoughts and I felt it was worthwhile to make my case again. To that end I posted the following over at The Reaction:

Michael,

If Heraclitus' intent was procedural in nature there would have been no argument, or what argument there was would have been small. In fact I read his original post as if he was making a procedural argument. What do i mean by that? Well, take the case of the ACLU defending the KKK's right to free speech. When it does helps the KKK in those cases it doesn't mean that the ACLU is endorsing the substance of the KKK views. Everyone gets that. The ACLU doesn't think the KKK platform is "just another viewpoint" or "someones take on the world" that deserves as much respect as any other opinion.

I made the exact same assumption about Heraclitus defending Marcotte. And I AGREED. She should be able to say what she wants without assholes threatening her. (The fact that nasty comments, as opposed to physical threats to her person, get directed towards her has to be taken with a grain of salt, as, if you read the comment section over there, she can be as nasty and mean spirited as anyone. If she can give that kind of junk out, she should be willing to take it too.)

However, that doesn't mean what she says isn't bigotted and unworthy of respect. And I find her writing on Catholicism and Christianity every bit as bigotted as any KKK screed. Alright, fine, you guys disagree, and you want to make an argument (so I assumed) that her writing is within the bounds of legitimate opinion. My point was you are never going to convince a large number of people that calling the Church a vehicle for misogyny is anything other than hateful.

So, back in my original comment (please go re-read it) I very clearly call Marcotte's views "a pedjudice born of stereotyipcal thinking, ignorance, and hate." Now, I do say that I think Heraclitus misses the point by focusing so much on the sexual imagery in that one statement. I AGREE WITH HIS TAKE ON THAT. It's distasteful, "obscene" (if you like, its not a word I use), and "in the gutter" vulgar, but I'd defend her right to say it.

I then stated, perhaps infelicitously, "The truth is, if you belong to a group that is on the liberal "shit list" opinion folks (like yourself) dont care what kind of hateful language gets thrown out there." The point here is that many on the left do not care for many of the Catholic Church's teachings, particularly on sexual mores, as they conflict with their ideological vision. For that reason they are very comfortable hearing "anti-Catholic doctrine" talk on those subjects. SO comfortable in fact that I feel they dont notice when it crosses the line from disagrement on issues to hate.

I then made the commonplace view that Edwards, as a presidential candidate, has to make sure he appeals to as large a number of people as he can. In that effort he will naturally try not to piss off large groups of people that might possibly supprt him. Why am I going on like this??? He's gonna try to steer clear of controversey, just like every other serious presidential candidate. Period.

So while I very clearly labelled Marcotte a bigot (which is what the entire contrversey is about, right? If you define taking up the other side of the question as "out-of-bounds" how can we have a discussion?) I very clearly did NOT label Haraclitus as anything other than being on the "left."

So, of course, the very helpful response came from Heraclitus that Marcotte WASN'T a bigot because of two very important reasons: A) She wasn't talking [about] all Catholic and B) I was an illiterate with a martyr complex.

I responded by pointing out that Marcotte very clearly stated she was talking about the central tenets of Catholic Teaching and not some fringe group of whack jobs. I went on to point out other examples of Marcotte's writings that were either A) hateful or biggoted on religion or B) simply muddled headed on Catholicism. I also pointed to an example of behavior on the DK that backed up my claim that anti-Catholic bile can rise up on the left. (And to the DK's credit they tried to say "Whoa folks!! That's over the line" but the comment section was having none of it. Oh and, just for the record, there were SCORES of folks calling the pope a Nazi not just "an unnamed" commentor.)

It was only at this point that Heraclitus started to defend the SUBSTANCE of Marcotte's views. It was also at this point that I had to consider that maybe Haraclitus was not playing the ACLU to Marcotte's KKK. And yes, I changed tactics, just like an attorney asking the judge to treat someone as a hostile witness.

From that point on almost none of my points were addressed by Heraclitus, who mostly just repeated the Marcotte line. There was this exchange though...

You (Heraclitus) state: "But, if you're so interested in dialogue, why does the Catholic Church deserve more respect than the gays whom they teach are fundamentally "disordered"? Why should religion generally be exempt from criticism and mockery, while it preaches that whole groups of people are going to hell?"

I said: "Using this standard I'll be waiting anxiously for your vicious take down of Islam."

to which I got the response:

"Iconic Jackass, I didn't "viciously take down" anything."

To me...my point was very clear. Muslims do not think Heraclitus or I are going to get into paradise when we punch our final time card. Good things are not going to happen to us, so says their religion. Now, if is justifiable for people to say whatever they like about the Catholic Church because its teachings send some folks to hell, then it would be ok to do the same to Islam. Heraclitus or I could say WHATEVER we liked about Islam, because we have no reason to respect it as it is not letting us into paradise. Nothing in the realm of language would be "over the line"? Heraclitus made the claim that as long as you didn't discriminate against someone nothing else could be contrued as bigotry. By that standard the KKK are only bigots when they do something specific (i.e. engage in an overt act of discrimination) like deny a black person a job. For me, they are bigots ALL the time, because of what they SAY, the MANNER in which they say it, and the obvous INTENT they have to belittle and demean others.

To tell you the truth, if I thought for a second that Heraclitus was really defending the SUBSTANCE of Marcotte's "thought" I never would have posted a comment in the first place. It really surprised me that that turned out to be the case. I had no idea he would personally identify his views so strongly with Marcotte's. So strongly in fact that if you call her a bigot you are calling him a bigot too. But, how could I have known that when I started? Ah well..live and learn.

On the other hand I have enjoyed the irony of all the name calling directed at me by the author of "A few words on tolerance and respect." Great stuff!