Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
No Thanks ...
Posted by: McQ on Monday, August 18, 2008

Bill Donahue of the "Catholic League" is demanding that certain "credentialed blogs" covering the Democratic Convention be cut from the list for being "offensive" to Catholics.
“The list of credentialed blogs include radical sites like The Daily Kos. Worse are blogs that feature anti-Catholic and obscene material. The two most offensive are Bitch Ph.D. and Towleroad.
Donahue goes on to describe what constitutes their offensive conduct and why they should be "nixed" from the list.

I'm not going to link to them because I share Donahue's assessment. For the most part they are not the type of blog I would put on my reader, mostly for the reasons he lists.

However.

You knew there had to be a "however".

However, the last thing I want to see are demands such as Donohue's taken seriously for either convention.

If they're vile and offensive, then, by all means, make that known to your readers and recommend they not patronize those blogs. Perfectly acceptable in my book.

But demand they be cut from a political event? Uh, no. At that point it moves beyond disagreement and into an area where such demands are unacceptable. The convention is a political event, not a church event. What these blogs are or aren't reflects much more on the DNC than the Church. But getting them banned would shift the spotlight in a very unfavorable way onto the group claiming to represent the Church - and deservedly so.

Agreed, for the most part they're offensive blogs not worth the time to read. Disagree that it is the business of church affiliated groups to get anyone banned from political events.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Agreed. This is the kind of censorship Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant have been defending themselves against in Canada. Yeah, they’re probably offensive. You have a right to be offended. Fight them with words and ideas or ignore them.
 
Written By: the wolf
URL: http://
I don’t link to Andy Towle only because I consider him to be more of a news aggregator than a substantive blogger in his own right.

But the notion that his site is obscene is absurd. The SI Swimsuit Issue is much worse than anything you would find on Towleroad.

And the only reason we gays tend to be "anti-Catholic" is, quite frankly, because Catholics like Donohue make it so darn easy.
 
Written By: KipEsquire
URL: http://www.kipesquire.net
You know, this might bother me more if it wasn’t likely those organization had already asked for the Catholic League to be banned.
 
Written By: jpm100
URL: http://
SI Swimsuit Issue is much worse
The SI swimsuit issue is bad!! Wow, what a prude you are. ;)
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
Whether Donahue is trying to draw distinction between how the perpetually outraged and proportedly sympathetic vanguards of progressive society view different religioons, the difference, once again, will be noted.

Only when folks like Donahue incite deadly riots, or cut off heads, will the left think about becoming sympathetic to their cause.

Probably not though, they would have to become anti-American and/or anti free market before the left embraced them. [overstated on purpose]
 
Written By: bains
URL: http://
Well, hold on a second. This is the part where I have to disagree a bit. While I do think that ’banning’ them would be over the top, it still in their rights to do so as a private Party. The Democratic (or Republican) Party is NOT the Government, therefore it is not censorship if those blogs are not invited to their Party.

If that were the case, Stormfront would be welcome to both, and I’m willing to wager they aren’t.
 
Written By: Joel C.
URL: http://
The Democratic (or Republican) Party is NOT the Government, therefore it is not censorship if those blogs are not invited to their Party.
Not arguing anything about government. Saying, instead that its political speech and it really isn’t any of the business of a church affiliated assocation.
If that were the case, Stormfront would be welcome to both, and I’m willing to wager they aren’t.
I’m not sure where you come up with that, but it is up to the party to vet whomever they credential, not the Catholic League.

If the League doesn’t like it, they’re welcome to say so. Beyond that, I’m not sure what business it is of theirs nor where they get off thinking they have the right to insist certain blogs are dropped.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.QandO.net
However, the last thing I want to see are demands such as Donohue’s taken seriously for either convention.
How many times have we seen the same kind of play against people ostensibly of the right wing, where the left has bitched up a blue streak about it? say, Bill Kristol, and Coulter, the occasional Limbaugh spout, and so on. It’s the same game on their side as it is on ours. The major difference is that their side has very little in the way of shame, and therefore can’t be shamed out of its offensive writers. Certainly, if the Democrats took the value structure of Mr. Donohue and his organization anywhere near seriously, they denounced such sites as he complains about, and such writers a long time ago.

Bruce , you know as well as I do how this thing gets played. Donahue makes those demands, knowing full well that the Democrats are not going to take it seriously. The bigger value in making those demands, is in loudly linking the Democratic Party to those offensive sites. In the end, I think that’s the point that Donohue is making. He is making use of a trick the left has been using for decades; claiming offense to draw a negative attention to a particular group of people. Surreptitious, yet highly effective.

Donahue is not asking for governmental involvement in the silencing of what he thinks are the offending writers, (and for the record I, too, agree with his assessment) he’s asking for the Democrats to have the kind of standards that Henke was complaining about the other day, and deal with the problem exclusive to government, whereas I submit the Democrats would be screaming for governmental involvement as a first line of defense. Can you say "fairness doctrine"?

And also for the record I have no problem on that level with religious groups making such statements, long as they don’t have the backing of the government purely because they ARE religious groups, that is. That seems to me the context DOnahue is operating in and frankly I have no problem with it in that context. They have the same right as any other group to express their views.

 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
This is the kind of censorship Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant have been defending themselves against in Canada.
No. It isn’t. Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant are defending themselves from censorship levied by an arm of the government.

Bill Donohue doesn’t employ the police power of the state to make his wishes come true. He’s just a guy in new York sending out press releases.

There’s no congruence at all between the two.
 
Written By: Dale Franks
URL: http://www.qando.net
McQ: With respect, I’m a bit confused about this one "Saying, instead that its political speech and it really isn’t any of the business of a church affiliated assocation.

I mean, I’m all for the separation of Church and State; I’m for the separation of individual and State, and the economy and the State too, but...

Why should (or would you ever expect) organized Church-related associations not be able to express their opinions and/or to attempt to manipulate their chosen target political organizations like any other special interest/pressure groups (say, organized environmentalists, or organized feminists, or organized libertarians who choose to vote, or secular humanists, or Marxists, or atheists or...well, you get the idea)? Isn’t that pretty much exactly how the partisan politics game is played?

I think it would be dumber than a cow’s face for the Convention to bow to the demands/requests of these religionists but I just don’t get the distinction you’re making.

 
Written By: Ron Good
URL: http://northernsubverbia.blogspot.com
Props.

 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
Why should (or would you ever expect) organized Church-related associations not be able to express their opinions and/or to attempt to manipulate their chosen target political organizations like any other special interest/pressure groups (say, organized environmentalists, or organized feminists, or organized libertarians who choose to vote, or secular humanists, or Marxists, or atheists or...well, you get the idea)? Isn’t that pretty much exactly how the partisan politics game is played?
They’re more than welcome to express their opinion and warn others not to read certain blogs for whatever reason they deem necessary. I simply draw the line at trying to get them denied access to political events because what the blog may have written in the past offends them.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.QandO.net
Bill Donahue of the "Catholic League" ...
Isn’t that a bit like saying "Larry Klayman of Judicial Watch," "Tommy Flanagan of Pathological Liars Anonymous," or "Xrlq of the National Association of Bloggers Who Call Themselves Xrlq?"
 
Written By: Xrlq
URL: http://xrlq.com/
Given the nature of the beasts, I’d be fascinated as to how someone would go about "banning" blogs from attendance anyways ;-)
 
Written By: Ron Good
URL: http://northernsubverbia.blogspot.com
True enough, Ron, you’re right, they couldn’t. But of course the objection Donahue is raising isn’t so much the idea that they make it inside, it’s that the Democrats willingly associate themselves with such.

An extreme example from the opposite side; Didn’t we see alot of objection from the left over Ron Paul getting support for Alex Jones and company?

 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
"Xrlq of the National Association of Bloggers Who Call Themselves Xrlq?"
(Hand raised)
Oh! Oh! Oh!... can I be a member?
(Chuckle)
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
"I simply draw the line at trying to get them denied access to political events because what the blog may have written in the past offends them."
Come on, this is silly. This is one private entity trying to influence another one. Who cares? And besides, this should give you reason to reconsider your thoughts:

Props.

Written By: glasnost
 
Written By: Grimshaw
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider