William Donohue of the Catholic League suggests that some celebrities get left out of the unforgivable-slur category -- when the targets are Catholics, even Mother Teresa. Take Penn Jillette, the loud, tall half of the magician duo of Penn & Teller, who now not only has a Showtime series called "B.S." but a nationally syndicated talk-radio show:
"Michael Richards gets interrupted by hecklers, unleashes a racist tirade, gets blasted by the cultural elite and apologizes. Mel Gibson gets drunk, unleashes an anti-Semitic tirade, gets blasted by the cultural elite and apologizes. Penn Jillette, without any provocation, unleashes an anti-Catholic tirade, gets a free pass from the cultural elite and never apologizes.
"Because the cultural elite did not blast Jillette, it is worth remembering what he said on his CBS radio show on April 5, 2006. He said that Mother Teresa ‘had this weird kink that I think was sexual,’ compared her to Charles Manson, and commented that she ‘got her [sexual] kicks watching people suffer and die.’ This was not the first time he attacked the beloved nun: last year, on Jillette’s Showtime TV show, he branded her ‘Mother F---ing Teresa’ and called her fellow sisters ‘f---ing c----.’ When I complained to Sumner Redstone, chairman of Viacom (which owns Showtime, as well as CBS), he wrote a letter defending Jillette’s ‘artistic freedom.’
"In other words, racism and anti-Semitism are unacceptable, even when expressed in frustration or when inebriated, but anti-Catholicism is okay, even when expressed repeatedly and done intentionally. The problem here is not with Richards, Gibson or Jillette—the problem is with all the phonies who claim to be horrified by bigotry."
Why can't the media gin up outrage for Catholics, too, at the very least for Mother Teresa? But the media seem to enjoy a good Catholic-whacking. Associated Press TV writer Frazier Moore praised Penn & Teller's show as “sassy secularists in a priesthood of knaves.” Brent Bozell wrote it up here. In 1997, he reviewed the Mother Teresa obituaries here.
—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
From this, it seems your is
November 23, 2006 - 08:32 ET by sarcasmoFrom this, it seems your issue might be as much with Chris Hitchens as with Penn, if not more. Of course, it's not a shocker that Penn gets the death-threat, as he's got a way of getting under people's skin.
JMR
Read the link, sarc. And was
November 23, 2006 - 10:08 ET by Indiana JoeRead the link, sarc. And was surprised, I hadn't heard about Hitchens' problems with Mother Theresa. Of course, as noted in the article, one needs to "take a number" if one wishes to make death threats against Hitchens.
I've always liked Penn & Teller. I've even watched their "Bullsh*t" show, and find it to be a true "skeptic" show, skewering all manner of things, from global warming to the false premises behind "petitions" and "polling." So, I have no beef with Gillette, per se. But I do find his remarks at least as rude, insensitive and insulting as any made by Richards or Gibson. And just as unnecessary.
Not surprising HE'D get the death threat, he's much more visible to the general public than Hitchens ("general public," note). But in this case, it seems to be one whack-job "radio host." Deserved to be fired, at the least, IMHO.
I was impressed that the Vatican called Hitchens in to argue the case AGAINST the beatification of Mother Theresa. Those who believe the Catholic faith is closed-minded and monolithic would no doubt be shocked. Yet he apparently did not prove his case. It could be argued that the whole thing was "window dressing," I suppose, though.
To me, as a practicing Roman Catholic, the issue here is still that a celebrity can make these kinds of remarks, and basically get a "pass," as long as he's attacking one of the very few groups left that it is permissible to attack: white males, Christians, "rednecks," and, of course, "Catholics."
Funny You Should Mention This
November 23, 2006 - 10:40 ET by Increase MatherAs today is Thanksgiving, I'm home from work. Turned on CSPAN this AM, The pretty blonde who was taking live calls had someone say that the GOP had to get away from "crackers and red necks" running the party.
She smilied and thanked the caller.
Can you imagine if a caller to CSPAN demanded that N------ and Jews be driven from the Democratic Party? The audio would have been instantly cut off and the host would be apologizing all over the place.
I too am a practicing Catholic and I see anti-catholicism and anti-caucasian all over the media. This is a huge double standard.
divided
November 23, 2006 - 11:44 ET by iveseenitallLet's face it. We are a divided society because the media and the politicians have taken sides. Minorities, secularists, non-Judeo/Christians on one side and Judeo/Christian white males on the other. Every chance the media gets to mock American traditions and values, they take it. The Democrats, also, continue to widen the divide through policies which are aimed at raising one group at the expense of another. Resentment runs deep and is just getting deeper by the day. You think what's said in public is bad? What people say in private are their true feelings and these feelings are not going to unify this country.
NEVER,NEVER trust a liberal
I think you're almost right..
November 23, 2006 - 21:30 ET by Tony SI think you're almost right...except I see Jews on the left side, with Catholics on the right side. I know that's an unpopular opinion to take. But my wife is Jewish and I am Catholic so she sees it from an "insider's angle." She is also a Republican. Anyway, she's continually pointing out that much of the anti-Catholic she sees comes from Jews, such as Frank Rich of the New York Times (whose writing about "The Passion of the Christ" was especially repugnant). If she wasn't sleeping, I'd get more examples from her -- she has given many.
re:
November 23, 2006 - 16:20 ET by LonevoiceWell, you hit it right on the head. It's OK to make fun of us Catholics...but as a Black Catholic, I feel the need to say something. If the word Nigger is offensive(yeah, I SAID IT< SO SUE ME!!!), like the F-word or what ever, it's offensive for ANYONE TO USE, not just white people. This thing where "we can use it, no one else can" is bullsh*t. Anyone who thinks different is A) not thinking clearly, and B) full of it.
I could be wrong, but I don't think so.
GIve me ONE valid reason that one group of people can talk differently than another....since we all enjoy the same 1st Amendment rights...or do us darkies get an "extra" to make up for what ever happened years ago that NONE of us actually were involved with...
Before you ask, I'm nearly fifty; I have relatives that remember the way things were at the turn of the century both in the South (New Orleans) and out west (Texas and Colorado) so this isn't just some idle chitchat/
What a bunch of maroons..Plus, it's JUST WORDS!!!!! Who cares about words?!?!!? Grow some thicker skin, and incidentally, GROW UP!!!!!!1
JMHO(prolly worth what it cost.....)
Havea nice holiday!!!
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
If it ain't a baby, you ain't pregnant....
bravo, lonely one!
November 23, 2006 - 16:40 ET by tumblerBravo!
If we're all children of God, we all are called to be saints.
Here's a true story:
My Aunt Carmen, who is in glory now for many years; opened the front door for a black woman, Salinas, CA Back in the 70's. The lady, a total stranger, asked to use the phone, please? Her taxi was waiting on the curb. Carmen answered OK, come on in. The lady sat at a chair, with one foot up on the footstool, and talked to somebody for a few minutes. Meanwhile Uncle Henry looked out from the hallway, and checked it all out. (He told us the story, a few years later.)
So, the lady leaves, thank you, etc., and Henry confronted his wife: "Do you figure any stranger is allowed into our home, are you stupid? We don't know who she is!" Henry related her simple answer in Spanish: "OK, Honey; Um sorry; BUT-- It just occurred to me, I know, a chance in a million She coulda been Our Lady; la Virgen santisima, in disguise . . ."
Yes. The apostle says we may sometimes entertain angels unaware. You never know. My aunt was a saint; a loving heart like so very few.
I agree that Penn's remarks
November 23, 2006 - 12:06 ET by sarcasmoI agree that Penn's remarks were very rude, and I wouldn't have said them or at least wouldn't put them that way, as such epithets tend to end debate. My guess is that Penn would argue that it's the only way to get attention, which he did, but I think his words were less-convincing (even to non-Catholic fellow-skeptics like me) because of Penn's obviously-poor choice of words. And speaking of media attention, I'm a big admirer of Mr. Donohue. If only my various libertarian-issues could be kicked into the news media 1/10th as well as he manages to get in (in this case, pretty-old) Catholic-bashing, I'd probably complain a lot-less around here about what I continue to see as rampant & growing antiLibertarian mediabias. I also think this might be just-slightly (ok, hugely!) bigger news today than what Penn said months-ago...
JMR
Totally agree, sarc, this is
November 23, 2006 - 12:19 ET by Indiana JoeTotally agree, sarc, this is HUGE. Again, the RC Church is seen as so inflexible and monolithic, but this shows that debate goes on behind the scenes to keep the Faith relevant. I'm personally a "traditional" Catholic (i.e., I still accept the Host in my mouth, not the hands, as is currently in vogue), but realities of life must be accounted for.
And noting that the exemption would only apply to "married couples" where one partner is HIV-positive, is not going to be enough to mollify the critics of the Church. But it is a step in the right direction, without completely abandoning the traditional mores of the Church.
I'm not so sure what the Church teaches would have much effect among gays and casual sexual partners in any case, in that their "life choices" don't seem to follow Catholic teachings anyway.
But again, it's a step, and a great story to read. Thanks for the post.
Regards,
IJ
Hey Indiana--if you want to b
November 23, 2006 - 14:26 ET by ncstevemHey Indiana--if you want to be a truly traditional Catholic, start assisting at the traditional Latin Mass.
Don't have to put up with all the girly nonsense (i.e. girl alter boys, busy-body laymen prancing around the sanctuary like they own the place, insipid music, girly priests are more concerned with 'social justice' than the salvation of souls) that one finds in the new Mass.
It will change the way you practice your Catholicism.
Well, ncstevem, I really like
November 23, 2006 - 14:54 ET by Indiana JoeWell, ncstevem, I really like my parish. While the Latin Mass does have a place in my heart, I don't have to put up with the type of stuff you're talking about here:
"... all the girly nonsense (i.e. girl alter boys, busy-body laymen prancing around the sanctuary like they own the place, insipid music, girly priests are more concerned with 'social justice' than the salvation of souls) that one finds in the new Mass."
We have a wonderful, traditional-minded pastor, none of the above, a deacon who assists. That's about the extent of the "lay" people. And various lectors for the readings. But the deacon or the pastor ALWAYS does the Gospel, and the homily. Plus my son attends school there, and being a member gets us a tuition discount (hefty!).
Maybe I'm just lucky. Looked around a few parishes, and settled on this one 6 years ago and haven't looked back. Not too much of the "girly" Masses in this area, that I found. This parish just seemed to suit me, you know? Maybe being in "fly-over" country has spared me the type of "Catholicism-lite" you're talking about. Or like I said, maybe just lucky.
But I have considered catching a Latin Mass locally from time to time. Just haven't gotten around to it.
Et cum spiritu tuo, (IIRC)
IJ
Well said!!!!If it ain't a ba
November 23, 2006 - 16:23 ET by LonevoiceWell said!!!!
If it ain't a baby, you ain't pregnant....
whoops, meant to reply to same post you replied to
Don't know a whole about Penn
November 23, 2006 - 12:46 ET by mikejDon't know a whole about Penn, other than I love him and Teller as a magician team.
He has got some rather radical ideas to say the least. I saw him on Glenn Beck a little while ago and he was saying that if we truly want to be a free country then we need to stop the security checkpoints at airports and realize that truly being free means taking certain chances etc.
Although he and Teller had one of the best magic tricks I've seen on David Letterman a long time ago.
stop secuity checks
November 23, 2006 - 12:54 ET by iveseenitallStop security checks at airports. What a brilliant idea. No thanks.
NEVER,NEVER trust a liberal
Amazingly enough, that was ju
November 23, 2006 - 12:58 ET by mikejAmazingly enough, that was just kind of like the tip of the iceberg for everything else he had to say. Wish I could remember it all but he had some fairly open ideas on gun control and other things as well.
I'm getting to like Beck's program more and more.
penn
November 23, 2006 - 13:06 ET by iveseenitallThis guy Penn sounds like a poster boy for the arrogance of ignorance.
NEVER,NEVER trust a liberal
The media, so tacky and blatantly anti-Christian-Semitic
November 23, 2006 - 13:13 ET by PlaceboRoman Catholicism has been incessantly and voraciously attacked by our leftist non-believers, whilst those whom deem our destruction, Islam, receives none. The media, so tacky and blatantly anti-Christian-Semitic are in want of undermining that, which is greater than they will ever muster.
Are any of the above beyond reproach, of course not? Nevertheless the boldfaced aggressions on Catholicism and the recent dismissal by the “media” of Penn’s Catholic slur, serves notice; that it will always be thus. Until we stand up to the media and other detractors of our faith.
mikej, When you say Penn had
November 23, 2006 - 15:38 ET by Indiana Joemikej,
When you say Penn had "...some fairly open ideas on gun control..." I'm assuming by "open," you mean he would agree with me:
"Gun Control" means hitting your target!
He's not a TOTAL "whack-job," IMO, but he is outspoken and opinionated.
As am I ..... ;^)
Well...about Penn...
November 23, 2006 - 13:17 ET by Guy Arthur ThomasPenn has come to the conclusion that you are too stupid to enjoy his illusions without having to be indoctrinated by himl, so this aging CRYBABY BOOMER has stepped into the realm of social and political criticism and commentary so he doesn't want you to receive him or view him in the context of his entertainment skills but in light of his social, political and religious commentary. Still like him? Right, me neither, just another CRYBABY BOOMER who thinks because he is an entertainer he or she has been gifted with social, political and relgious acumen and commentary skills. Gawd...CRYBABY BOOMER generation has got to be the most damned narcissistic generation ever!
I am a member of LSCA (Lazy Spell Checkers Anonymous).
Right
November 23, 2006 - 13:27 ET by iveseenitallRight on ,Guy. Narcissistic fools whose self-esteem is out of control.
NEVER,NEVER trust a liberal
Easy for him to say...I doubt
November 23, 2006 - 15:47 ET by thefirststrikeEasy for him to say...I doubt very much that he flies on commercial carriers. I would be surprised if he didn't have his own personal aircraft. And even if he does take commercial aircraft, being a celebrity I am sure he probably gets afforded special treatment. I doubt that he ever has to undergo security screening and bag searches like the rest of us common folk.
Rampaging against Mother Theresa and the Catholic church should be no more acceptable than what Mel and Micheal did. But as we all know, anti-Christianity is just another of those subjects that are held in a double standard by the liberals. Everything is OK if they are doing it!! Look at the rant from Rosie O'Donnell a few weeks ago, comparing Christianity to Radical Islam. Hardly a peep from the MSM or Hollywwod, and what was said was almost 100% supportive.
What hypocritical bull--it!
D.J.R.
Penn is not all bad
November 23, 2006 - 13:38 ET by azgolferWhile these comments are over the top, Penn is a true libertarian. BS did a brilliant takedown on the federally funded recycling racket. And they seem more anti-Mother Teresa than anti-Catholic.
If this represented Libertarianism
November 23, 2006 - 14:25 ET by tumblerHow can a Libertarian allow that kind of joker to represent him?
It's like the lion, king of the beasts, being included among a family of skunks. "No thanks," Leo says. "Lions have no appetite for your kind."
Just followed the link in t
November 23, 2006 - 14:24 ET by SunshineJust followed the link in the article and read Brent Bozell's dissection of the media coverage of Diana vs. Mother Theresa. Diana was all but canonized, day after day, after day.
And then when Mother Theresa died, I remember seeing a newscaster (I think it was Judy Woodruff on CNN) open the news with the comment " 'Another' good woman died today."
Judy
November 23, 2006 - 14:48 ET by iveseenitallJudy Woodruff--just "another" ignorant liberal.
NEVER,NEVER trust a liberal
Repugnant
November 23, 2006 - 18:58 ET by acumenThe Catholic Church's unrelenting public position on the sanctity of life is why the estab media long-ago declared open-season on the Church. All of the other issues dealing with the Church such as women priests or permitting priests to marry are merely distracting battles in the media's shock and awe war to protect abortion from those supposedly evil fundamental Catholic zealots:
Recently CBS News/anchor Katie Couric featured on their "free speech" segment Brian Rohrbough, whose 15-year-old son Daniel was killed in the Columbine massacre. Mr Rohrbough echoed the position of the Catholic Chuch concerning the sanctity of human life and the consequential impact on our society.
"When my son Dan was murdered on the sidewalk at Columbine High School on April 20th, 1999, I hoped that would be the last school shooting." said Rhorbough.
"Since that day, I tried to answer the question why did this happen?" Rohrbough added.
"This country is in a moral free fall. For over two generations, the public school system has taught in a moral vacuum," he explained. "We teach there are no absolutes, no right or wrong. And I assure you, the murder of innocent children is always wrong, including by abortion. Abortion has diminished the value of children,"
Reacting to criticism from abortion advocates that he appeared on the show, Couric, on her Internet blog, wrote, "We knew when we decided to put on this segment that a lot of people would disagree with it. We also knew some might even find it repugnant."
Every now and then the estab media is thrown into turmoil because they have chosen to take a public stand supporting legalized abortion. Take for instance the pregnant Laci Peterson murder. How difficult it was for the estab media to take the side of the State that wished to try Laci's husband for the death of his wife and unborn....er unborn what? Uh oh, what to call this unborn now? Stay with the innocuous 'fetus' or side with the Catholic Church, the State and every reasonable person and call this developing human whose life was snatched away before exiting the womb an unborn 'person'? What a dilemma. To admit the 'person' formerly known as 'fetus' was all along a 'person' was to admit that every abortion is killing a 'person'. What to do? In typical media fashion, the estab media chose not to take a stand (when convenient they hide behind the objective reporter mantra) on this issue of how many murders Scott had actually committed while continuing to attack the Catholic Church - for stating the obvious of course.
At least Richards, Gibson, Sen Byrd, Harold Ford's father, etc have the opportunity to defend their actions. In spite of the heroic efforts of the Catholic Church, due in large part to the whims of secularist, self-described feminists defended by the estab media, millions of aborted 'persons' will never have that opportunity. That is what I find repugnant.
"Take for instance the p
November 24, 2006 - 02:22 ET by Indiana Joe"Take for instance the pregnant Laci Peterson murder. How difficult it was for the estab media to take the side of the State that wished to try Laci's husband for the death of his wife and unborn....er unborn what? Uh oh, what to call this unborn now?"
Acumen, the same exact point occurred to me during the whole Peterson case. I couldn't believe that the media, at least what I saw of it, actually considered the idea of trying Scott Peterson for a "double-homicide" without dealing with the underlying conundrum. Well, I COULD believe it, because I SAW it, but the complete disregard of the hypocrisy of their standpoint was totally lost on them. IIRC (and I admit I may not), they claimed there was water in the "fetus'" lungs, therefore, it HAD been "born," and THEREFORE was a "person." I think...?
As if it matters.....
Being a hypocrite means never having to say you're sorry, I guess.
Or WRONG, either!
It's easy for liberals to exp
November 24, 2006 - 09:58 ET by MentalrushIt's easy for liberals to explain the conundrum, Joe. If they want it, it's a person. If they don't, it's a thing. One thing you're never, ever supposed to do is inconvenience a liberal! A million babies would tell the tale if they could.
Lest we become like our Lib
November 23, 2006 - 22:24 ET by liberal_bug_zapperLest we become like our Liberal foe, let us remember that Freedom of speech does not mean freedom to be heard. In that same vein, we must accept that we will eventually be offended by some of what we hear, and that we must support people's right to spout that which is vile to us. Our wonderful freedom of speech, which I'm willing to die for, means we will be faced with opinions and speech that we find disgusting.
Where I draw the line on freedom of speech is where it actually endangers our country, and endangers the life of my wife and daughter. Like leaks of key national intelligence documents, and leaks of secret programs to gain information about future attacks from our enemies. My opinion of those who leak and those who print is that they should be tried, found guilty as they most certainly are, and hung.... publicly.
Penn is disgusting at times, and agreeable at times, I liked his rant against PETA, and found his Anti-Catholic bashing over the top.
Mel Gibson is a fine fellow with personal issues and possibly some anti-Semitism, who the hell cares? If he starts calling for people to behead Jews, then he should be shut up and thrown in Jail. Otherwise, his freedom to speak is his.
For Michael Richards, so he let loose with some racial epitaphs, so the hell what? If it offends you, teach Mr. Richards a lesson in the Free Market and stop buying anything that would trickle back to him. Cancel your cable subscription if they don't remove Seinfeld, cancel the order for the Seinfeld DVD set you have on back order or what have you.... but quit trying to silence free speech.
And lastly, It's time we stop complaining about the bias, and start writing our own truth. Aren't there any rich conservatives reading this who want to start an online newspaper with by mail paper delivery? I hate the media bias. But we won't defeat it by complaining about it. I do not mean that we should stop pointing it out, but I do mean we need to start an online paper where the writers will write articles based on news..... and try to only report the news as news, not opinion.
Now for the caveat: While I support freedom of speech, and even support my ideological enemies right to it.... I will battle their ideas from here to eternity. I won't ever try to see them shut up, unless they're leaking national war secrets, but I will work to defeat them in the arena of ideas. Remember this conservative compatriots, they try and shut down free speech, to stifle dissent if it is against them and to take away our freedom. We, on the other hand, put our lives on the line for their vile filth, and ignore or battle dissent with logic and reason, and fight to bring freedom to all. That stark contrast is why I fight so hard, and why I believe that it is in our best interest to keep fighting the good fight, and defeat Liberals everywhere.... ideologically speaking.
Wonderful, marvelous, OUTSTAN
November 24, 2006 - 02:26 ET by Indiana JoeWonderful, marvelous, OUTSTANDING POST!!!
Great work, l_b_z. I can concur 100% with everything you say here.
(And I don't have to risk carpal tunnel!) .... ;^)
Thanks! You speak for many here, I think, and for me, I'm SURE!
Regards,
IJ
B-e-a-utifully written, and I
November 24, 2006 - 10:03 ET by MentalrushB-e-a-utifully written, and I have to agree 100%. in fact, I've always thought it was in our best interest to let liberals talk as much as they want; their own mouths are often our best weapons.