Commentary: A sadly common collusion of bigotry and idiocy

One of the first rules of debate is that the person you are debating should be able to recognize their own opinions when you try to characterize them. Otherwise, all you've managed to do is construct a charicature of the other person's position.

With that little tip in mind, see if you can recognize your beliefs as an orthodox Catholic about a current sensitive issue well represented (or not) in the cartoon below, which I found on the Feministe blog:

Yeah, I didn't think you would.

In fact, the rest of the short post only confirms my suspicion that the author Jill couldn't identify the "Catholic" position if her life depended on it, which is ironic considering her choice to categorize the post under "Crazy Conservatives."

Maybe it's me, but I didn't realize you could call someone crazy unless you understood what they were suffering from, or had proven you weren't yourself suffering from a severe case of altered perception.

Consider her argument:

Democrats may be against wars that kill millions, in favor poverty alleviation, and supportive of international policies that save millions more, but so long as they don’t think women should be forced into continuing pregnancies, they’re going to Hell. And you’re going with them if you vote for Obama or Clinton:

Well, let's think about this a moment. Yep, Catholics are against wars that kill millions, are in favor of relieving poverty, and - oh wait, I think the "international policies" that would "save millions more" which she is referring to actually constitute forced abortion, sterilization and contraception. On that topic, we do indeed disagree. But these tactics which she claims save millions of lives, actually take more, and hurt the survivers.

Regarding forcing women to continue pregnances, I can't think of a single pro-life individual who would describe their goal that way. More like,"Allowing human beings to live." That's what we're trying to do, and it doesn't sound so bad.

As for sending people to hell, we don't have that authority on our own. But from what I hear, it's sure not a place I'd like to see my friends visit. And if I were doing things that put me in danger of going there, I'd hope that my friends would have the kindness to tell me.

Now, all this that I've just gone through constitutes nothing new to folks used to debating ignorant, anti-Catholic individuals. There's something tediously predictable about their arguments, which sound all the more shallow each time they more vocally proclaim them.

Which is why it should also come come as no surprise that the source Jill used for her flawed and hackneyed script was none other than ... a National Catholic Reporter journalist writing an op-ed for the Washington Post. This journalist (Joe Feuerherd) , we are told, "covered the U.S. bishops and the 2004 presidential race as Washington correspondent [for the Reporter.]"

If you wonder how fair and accurate that coverage probably was, you have only to read his piece.

But since I don't like distressing my readers unduly, I'll reprint his summary paragraph:

"So what's a pro-life, pro-family, antiwar, pro-immigrant, pro-economic-justice Catholic like me supposed to do in November? That's an easy one. True to my faith, I'll vote for the candidate who offers the best hope of ending an unjust war, who promotes human dignity through universal health care and immigration reform, and whose policies strengthen families and provide alternatives to those in desperate situations. Sounds like I'll be voting for the Democrat -- and the bishops be damned."

Quite an argument, there. Is it me, or is there an elephant in the room he's ignoring?

I thought so.

To conclude, it is fascinating to watch how desparately Mr. Feuerherd sees his Catholic faith in this election as a political issue, nay, as the validation for his ultimate pick. And here, I thought all the folks telling me I didn't have to vote my faith were doing so on the premise that voting is not a religious issue.

I hope Mr. Feuerherd has quite an effect with his line of reasoning, just not the effect he intends.