This is what baffles me about Amanda’s joke. About her thinking behind it.

Why piss off people who already to a degree agree with you? (They might not all agree that its plainly misogynistic but they still think the official church position on contraception is a holdover old-school tradition that no longer applies.) Why burn a potential bridge? Is it not enough to get the votes and the policy change? Do you have to “correct their thinking” as well?
Or was she just not aware of the dichotomy between what American Catholics do believe and what the official Church position is?
Or was she just having a Lenny Bruce moment?

‘When saying “Merry Christmas” in public, or “One nation under God” in the pledge of allegiance, offends other religous groups, Schools and other public organizations have to use other words, or remove these words.’

The problem in this case is not with individuals saying these words. Feel free. The problem is with children being *coerced* into saying these words. There’s a major difference between
(a) you saying “I believe this is one nation under God”, and
(b) you ordering *my* children to either chant along with “one nation under God” or face ostracism. Which is what happens in public schools.

That doesn’t explain the Catholic Church hierarchy’s plainly misogynistic opposition to contraception. “Every sperm is sacred….” is a disturbingly accurate description of official policy. This official position is of course contrary to the saner views of many if not most Catholics.

Of course, it’s arguable that the rampant misogyny comes from the rampant fear of and hatred of sex (women being blamed for sex quite consistently) rather than the other way around, but since they reinforce each other, it’s hard to sort them out.

When the super bowl runs an add about Snickers that offends the Gay community, it has to be taken off the air. When saying “Merry Christmas” in public, or “One nation under God” in the pledge of allegiance, offends other religous groups, Schools and other public organizations have to use other words, or remove these words.

It seems that if you’re a liberal, you EXPECT your view to be the ONLY view, and you’re protecting people’s rights. However, if you’re a conservative, and you express your view, it’s for political reasons and you’re attacking someone.

Can’t have it both ways people.

I think all religion is okay to mock, and atheism is okay to mock, too. When have I ever said otherwise?

On the general subject of double standards, I think this post by Hilzoy - comparing the recent kerfuzzle regarding Amanda to the Danish cartoon controversy - is excellent. From Hilzoy’s post:

But if someone says: the cartoonists should not have drawn the cartoons, and also says: Edwards should not have fired Amanda Marcotte, that’s not evidence of a double standard. Those two agents are not on a par, and they do not face the same decisions. Had I been a Danish cartoonist, I would not have drawn the cartoons; had I been Amanda, I would not have written those of her posts that ridiculed Christianity as a whole, not just those Christians who have made themselves legitimate targets of ridicule by e.g. mounting campaigns against Sponge-Bob Square Pants and Tinky-Winky. Had God taken me aside and offered me the ability to make the Danish cartoonists, Amanda, or anyone else, conform to my sense of what they should write or draw, I would be horrified and say no. Had I been the Danish government, I would have stuck up for those cartoonists’ rights; had I been the US government, I would have stuck up for Amanda’s. Had I been either a Danish newspaper or the Edwards campaign, I would not have fired the people in question, though I think that employers can legitimately consider the question how their employees’ public personae affect their business interests. (This last is meant not as a point about whether employers can legally take such things into account. I don’t know enough about that to say.) Had I been either a random Catholic or a random Muslim, I would have focussed on more important things. And so on.

The general point, of course, is: it’s always, always a good idea to take statements about someone’s position on a situation as shorthand for: someone’s position about what someone in that situation should have done; to consider the various different decisions that confront the different actors in that situation; and to consider the possibility that apparent conflicts in someone’s position on two apparently similar situations might be due not to inconsistencies in that person’s beliefs, but to the fact that s/he is talking about what two differently situated actors should do. It’s one of those useful tools of thought that can clarify a lot.

49. I am in a secret fourfold word, the blasphemy against all gods of men.

50. Curse them! Curse them! Curse them!

51. With my Hawk’s head I peck at the eyes of Jesus as he hangs upon the cross.

52. I flap my wings in the face of Mohammed & blind him.

53. With my claws I tear out the flesh of the Indian and the Buddhist, Mongol and Din.

54. Bahlasti! Ompehda! I spit on your crapulous creeds.

badteeth, in the context of Plan B, it doesn’t matter what anyone thinks about a fetus that doesn’t exist yet. Even the status of a fertilized egg seems of dubious relevance. Only the Church’s views on semen definitely matter. Presumably this explains the implication that church opponents of emergency contraception worship semen, or think it can create a child by itself. (And yet they refuse to accept the clear implications of their position. Sacredness cannot be an insult unless all images and names of God are an insult.)

But is it politically wise?

— Nor is Amanda’s point — which is, as I read it, that those Catholics who support misogynistic policies aren’t forced to do so by Catholicism, but are instead just using Catholicism as a post-hoc rationalization for their own misogyny — in any way anti-Catholic.

It assumes bad faith on the part of catholics and I believe assumes it incorrectly. Most pro-life catholics really do believe fetus=baby. Really. No joke. I’m sure that there are charlatans, opportunists and machiavellian types in the Church and in the pro-life movement in general, but really, the rank and file everyday catholic that votes against pro-choice candidates no matter what other social justice causes that would benefit them those candidates support, would vote against them for letting babies get aborted. You can accuse them of being misogynist for this until you’re blue in the face, it won’t do any good, fetus=baby.

Also I agree that Catholic doctrine shouldn’t be immune from being made fun of. But just to make sure that we aren’t engaged in one-sided Catholic bashing, let’s exchange Muhammad’s and one of his wives for Mary and the Lord, and make some jokes about “hot, sticky, spunk”. Then when the person gets called an Islamophobe or maybe even gets death threats, liberals will vigorously come to those people’s defense.

Knowing ONLY that he is a politician, and assuming that he’d like to be President, I know further that he will hire or fire whomsoever and do whatsoever he thinks will play to the biggest audience. If he thought he’d make some mileage by hiring the Grand Kleagle or Whatever of the KKK as a press secretary, I’m assuming he’d do it.

So. The Catholics think they can play to this attitude of his by making a Big Noise. People who oppose the Catholic position on whatever are also going to make a Big Noise. Please not to think that John Edwards will make any decision on the basis of what he really believes, if he really believes anything, which is highly unlikely. (He believes he’d like to be President. That’s probably about it.) He will do whatever he thinks will get him closer to being President.

So. Everyone who cares about who John Edwards has for blogmistress should certainly make as much noise as they can. Just don’t think you’re going to convince Mr. Edwards that your position is right, or correct. He doesn’t care.