RELIGIOUS LITMUS TEST FOR ROBERTS?

Catholic League president William Donohue wrote the following remarks today on the prospects of creating a religious litmus test for John Roberts:

“The Senate Judiciary Committee will not hold its hearings on President Bush’s nomination of John Roberts for the Supreme Court for some time, but already there are signs that he will be asked to submit to a religious litmus test.  The informal discussions Roberts has had with some senators last week are cause for alarm.

“To be specific, Senator Tom Coburn complained last week that Roberts was reticent when asked to explain how his Catholic religion affects his views; the senator said he intends to ask Roberts about this again at their next meeting.  Also, in today’s Los Angeles Times, George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley says that he has learned that Roberts was uneasy when Senator Dick Durbin pressed him on a related matter: when asked what he would do if the law required a decision that conflicted with his religion, Roberts reportedly said he would probably have to recuse himself.

“The Catholic League is angry at Coburn and Durbin for asking these questions, and at Roberts for his replies.  On June 15, 1993, the Boston Globe ran a story on Supreme Court nominee Ruth Bader Ginsburg, wherein it printed a description of Ginsburg that was offered by a Georgetown law professor friend, Wendy Williams: she said Ginsburg had a strong ‘Jewish cultural identity,’ but was ‘not devout.’

“Ginsburg was never asked to explain why her identity as a Jew was mostly cultural.  Nor was she asked how her secular identity might affect her rulings on abortion and church-state issues.  Indeed, it would have been outrageous had anyone attempted to pursue such a line of inquiry.  Why it is not seen as equally outrageous for Coburn and Durbin to go down this road is testimony to the double standard: Ginsburg was not asked to submit to a religious litmus test and neither should Roberts.

“If Roberts doesn’t defend himself on this matter, he will only feed the sharks.  Playing it too safe isn’t cute: he’d better show some gumption.”



MAINSTREAMING MUSLIM BARBARISM

Pope Benedict XVI recently pleaded with Pakistan to abrogate its blasphemy law which allows the killing of those who “insult” Muhammad or the Koran; a senior Pakistani leader, Salman Taseer, was assassinated recently for protesting the death sentence of a Christian woman for the “crime” of converting. The pope was immediately condemned by a senior Muslim cleric for “interfering” in the “Islamic ideological state,” and the leader of the most powerful Islamic party accused the pope of “insulting” Muslims worldwide. Prior to this, more than 500 “moderate” Muslim clerics and scholars defended the assassination, according to a distinguished Pakistani journalist, “educated and articulate Pakistanis chided Taseer, even in death, for writing his own death warrant.”
Consider the following list of recent violent attacks on Christians and Catholics at the hands of Muslims:
• On Christmas Eve, 38 Christians were killed in Nigeria (2,000 were murdered earlier in the year).
• On Christmas Day, a Catholic chapel was bombed in the Philippines by an al-Qaida funded group.
• On Dec. 30, there were 11 bomb attacks on Christians in Iraq (58 were murdered on Oct. 31 at a Catholic cathedral).
• During the Christmas season, Iran arrested dozens of Christians who were former Muslims.
• On New Year’s Day, at least 23 Catholics were killed during Mass in Egypt (the killings were justified by clerics in Mauritania, and Iran’s official TV organ blamed Jews).
Moreover, Saudi Arabia makes it illegal to practice Christianity; Yemen is threatening to expel Christian workers; Christians who feed starving Somalis are targeted for murder; churches in Indonesia have been ravaged; and two million Christians have been murdered by Sudanese Muslims over the past two decades (many were crucified).
According to Open Doors, which monitors Christian persecution, of the ten most violent places on earth for Christians to live, eight are run by Muslims, and an estimated 100 million Christians worldwide live in fear. The central problem is the “Islamic ideological state.” There is no such thing as the “Christian or Jewish ideological state.” Let’s face it—Muslim barbarism has been mainstreamed in the name of Islam.



SNAP PSYCHIATRIST SENT TO PRISON

Dr. Steve Taylor, a Louisiana psychiatrist who has worked with the Survivors Network for those Abused by Priests (SNAP), was recently sentenced to two years in prison for possession of child pornography. When this news broke, we had no choice but to respond to it.
How many more morally debased psychiatrists have worked or are working with SNAP? Did SNAP leaders know about the leisure-time activities of Dr. Taylor? When did they know and what did they do about it? It’s time we learned the truth. What we know already is nauseating.
In 2008, Dr. Taylor’s computer was seized by the authorities after they learned that he was downloading child pornography. He was jailed on 107 counts at the time, and in September of last year a grand jury indicted him. The court recently accepted a plea bargain from him.
Dr. Taylor got off easy, at least according to his own standards. In 2003, speaking for SNAP clients, he argued that the confidentiality of the confessional seal should not be respected by the law. In a contemptuous statement against the Catholic Church, he voiced his objections to a unanimous decision by the Louisiana House Committee on the Administration of Criminal Justice protecting the confidential communication of priests, ministers, rabbis and other clergy members. He said at the time that the seal has to be broken because “We have faces now.”
Bill Donohue addressed SNAP saying, “Well, SNAP, we now have the faces of the children your colleague downloaded to feed his sick habits. If breaking the priest-penitent privilege is something you support, will you now support turning over the patient records of Dr. Taylor? Will you support a probe of this matter? What if there is more evidence against him? What if there are more victims? You’re always looking for new victims, aren’t you? Strike when the iron is hot—who cares about psychiatrist-patient privilege?”



THE POLITICS OF TILLER’S DEATH

Catholic League president Bill Donohue commented on the death of Dr. George Tiller:

The Catholic League unequivocally condemns the killing of serial killer, Dr. George Tiller. As I said on the CBS Evening News, “We have to get the message out that life means we have to respect all life, including somebody as bad as Dr. Tiller was.” Unfortunately, his death has already occasioned a highly political response from his allies.

From what we know of the suspect, Scott Roeder, the ex-con fits the profile of a deranged man. Yet there are those who are already trying to pin the blame on others. Andrew Sullivan and the Daily Kos have fingered Bill O’Reilly and are running a video of O’Reilly’s past denunciations of Tiller. Worse than this irresponsible accusation is the hypocrisy of the Daily Kos: above the O’Reilly video is an advertisement for an upcoming interview on C-Span2 with Bill Ayers, the urban terrorist who is a hero in some left-wing circles.

Others are busy collectivizing the guilt. Kim Gandy, president of the National Organization for Women, refers to “those who are behind this murder,” suggesting that this is part of a pro-life cabal. Vicki Saporta, president of the National Abortion Federation, also blames “individuals” for Tiller’s death. Similarly, Dr. Warren Hern, a late-term abortionist from Colorado, said Tiller’s death was the result of “a fascist movement in this country.”

Perhaps the ultimate politicization is the decision by U.S. Attorney Eric Holder ordering federal marshals to protect “other appropriate people and facilities around the nation.” Thus does Holder feed the frenzy of the pro-abortion industry that what happened to Tiller is the work of the pro-life community. We will closely monitor these developments.



D.C. GAY MARRIAGE BILL FLAWED

Catholic League president Bill Donohue takes issue with those who are critical of the Archdiocese of Washington for rejecting the D.C. bill on gay marriage:

When the bill to promote homosexual marriage was first introduced in D.C., the Archdiocese of Washington was fine with it. That’s because it protected the right of churches and other houses of worship not to perform gay marriages. But then gay overreach took place: the language was changed to narrow the religious liberty protections. Because the archdiocese fears that the new language could be used to force it to provide health benefits to gay couples, and allow for gay adoption, it said it could not abide by the revised bill. In practical terms, this means that Catholic Charities would suspend its city services, a move that would terminate its medical clinics, foster care and adoption services, tutoring for GED tests, mental health services, homeless shelters, etc.

The reaction from the Church’s critics has not only been harsh, it has been over the top. “What the Church is doing is an uncharitable and cruel maneuver,” wrote Petula Dvorak in the Washington Post. In the Huffington Post, Allison Kilkenny concluded that “If gay folk can marry, the Catholic church refuses to feed the homeless.” Adele M. Stan at AlterNet said that this decision, along with the bishops’ opposition to a health care bill that offered abortion coverage, “serve the bishops’ obsession with the sex lives and reproductive organs of others.” She showed her true colors when she opined, “As an institution, it [the Catholic Church] ranks among the world’s most sexually dysfunctional.”

If Alabama Governor George Wallace had told the Archdiocese of Mobile that as a condition of receiving state aid for social services it had to cease performing interracial marriages, few would have criticized the archdiocese for exercising its doctrinal prerogatives. Indeed, it may even have been applauded for doing so. Now it should not matter what the issue is that the Church decides it cannot in good conscience support—what should matter is its First Amendment religious liberty right to do so. The unprincipled, of course, cannot understand such logic.



WHO’S THE REAL BIGOT? MEL GIBSON OR SARAH SILVERMAN?

On today’s edition of “The View,” they ran a clip of entertainer Sarah Silverman’s appearance on Bill Maher’s HBO show. In the portion of the show they aired today, Silverman is shown slamming Pope Benedict XVI for not selling the Vatican to feed the poor.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue raises some questions about it:

Mel Gibson has a new movie out, and all that many reporters can talk about is the anti-Semitic remark he made four years ago when inebriated. By contrast, Sarah Silverman got a pass last October for her foul-mouthed attack on the pope—rendered when cold sober—and had it repeated today, much to the delight of Elizabeth Hasselbeck and Joy Behar.

If they had any guts, they would have aired the most indefensible thing Silverman said on Maher’s show. She said if the pope sells the Vatican, he “will get crazy p—y. All the p—y.”

Silverman was nothing if not defensive about her anti-Catholic remarks being made by a Jew. She said that this “has nothing to do with me being Jewish. You know, a lot of mail was like, ‘What if it was Jewish?’ You know, yeah. If the Jews owned something like that I would be, I’d have no religion. I’m not talking as a Jew. I just can’t help that I’m a Jew—it comes out of my pores.”

Silverman should feel guilty. Just as it is despicable for ex-Catholics like Hasselbeck and Behar to relentlessly assault Catholic sensibilities, it is despicable for a Jew to do so as well.

After Gibson made his drunken remarks, he said, “I want to apologize specifically to everyone in the Jewish community for the vitriolic and harmful words that I said.” But Silverman will never apologize to Catholics for her scripted hate speech. The double standard is sickening.

Contact “The View” executive producer: bill.geddie@abc.com



MAINSTREAMING MUSLIM BARBARISM

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments as follows:
 
The pope pleaded with Pakistan yesterday to abrogate its blasphemy law which allows the killing of those who “insult” Muhammad or the Koran; a senior Pakistani leader, Salman Taseer, was assassinated recently for protesting the death sentence of a Christian woman for the “crime” of converting. The pope was immediately condemned by a senior Muslim cleric for “interfering” in the “Islamic ideological state,” and the leader of the most powerful Islamic party accused the pope of “insulting” Muslims worldwide. Prior to this, more than 500 “moderate” Muslim clerics and scholars defended the assassin. Not only did 50,000 Pakistanis take to the streets last Sunday in support of the assassination, according to a distinguished Pakistani journalist, “educated and articulate Pakistanis chided Taseer, even in death, for writing his own death warrant.” And these were the educated ones!
 
On Christmas Eve, 38 Christians were killed in Nigeria (2,000 were murdered earlier in the year); on Christmas Day, a Catholic chapel was bombed in the Philippines by an al-Qaida funded group; on Dec. 30, there were 11 bomb attacks on Christians in Iraq (58 were murdered on Oct. 31 at a Catholic cathedral); during the Christmas season, Iran arrested dozens of Christians who were former Muslims; and on New Year’s Day, at least 23 Catholics were killed during Mass in Egypt (the killings were justified by clerics in Mauritania, and Iran’s official TV organ blamed Jews). Moreover, Saudi Arabia makes it illegal to practice Christianity; Yemen is threatening to expel Christian workers; Christians who feed starving Somalis are targeted for murder; churches in Indonesia have been ravaged; and two million Christians have been murdered by Sudanese Muslims over the past two decades (many were crucified).
 
According to Open Doors, which monitors Christian persecution, of the top ten most violent places on earth for Christians to live, eight are run by Muslims, and an estimated 100 million Christians worldwide live in fear.
 
The central problem is the “Islamic ideological state.” There is no such thing as the “Christian or Jewish ideological state.” Let’s face it—Muslim barbarism has been mainstreamed in the name of Islam.
 


VANITY FAIR’S ETHICS

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on Vanity Fair’s ethics:
 
There is a new f-word that offends Vanity Fair and it is not the obscenity: it’s “fags.” Homosexual writer Brett Berk has made public his contrition for using the word in his online review of a recent episode of the TV show, “Glee”; he described two homosexual characters, Kurt and Blaine, as “fags.” One reason Berk felt comfortable using the word is because he likes to call himself a “fun and faggy editor.” 
 
Vanity Fair adopted its new ethics policy after being criticized by GLAAD, a homosexual activist group. It should be noted that it has no policy against printing the obscene f-word, which it has printed on several occasions.
 
The policy is so new that the word “fag” appears in the March 2010 edition of Vanity Fair. Apparently, the magazine is more sensitive to homosexuals than African Americans: in the March 2011 edition, they printed the word “niggers.” 
 
All of this should be of interest to Catholics because Vanity Fair has a history of Catholic bashing. It has proudly published malicious diatribes by anti-Catholics like John Cornwell and Christopher Hitchens, so for it to now claim that it does not want to feed bigotry is a bit of a joke. Maybe someday they will think of Catholics the way they do homosexuals, then all will be right by us.