In this post, Bill Moyers conducts an important interview with investigative journalist Anne Nelson, who talks about her new book, SHADOW NETWORK: MEDIA, MONEY, AND THE SECRET HUB OF THE RADICAL RIGHT.
Read this and you will understand the dark forces that are undermining our democracy and our democratic institutions, including our public schools.
BILL MOYERS: Let me begin with the most current part of the story, which comes just a little bit after your book is published when the conservative movement is facing a very decisive encounter with the very forces it’s been trying to defeat now for 40 years. How do you think the shadow network reads the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court? What are they making of it?
ANNE NELSON: Well, I think that they consider it a great triumph and a kind of culmination of 40 years of effort. And I demure a bit at the term conservative because this is, for me, the radical right. It is so far to the right of mainstream American public opinion that I feel that it’s in a different category both in terms of its ideology and its tactics. But they decided way back in the day of Paul Weyrich, one of the architects of the movement that they–
BILL MOYERS: In the early 1970s, right?
ANNE NELSON: We’re going back to the ’70s and even earlier, because he was active on the Barry Goldwater campaign. And he was frustrated time and again by moderates in the Republican Party and people who were willing to work with Democrats to advance policy and solutions to public problems. And he created organizations and tactics that he openly declared should destroy the regime, as he called it, which would be the U.S. government as we’ve known it for the last century.
BILL MOYERS: Paul Weyrich is the man I remember saying–
PAUL WEYRICH: I don’t want everybody to vote. Elections are not won by a majority of people. They never have been from the beginning of our country and they are not now. As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populous goes down.
BILL MOYERS: He was essentially saying, as a newly anointed leader of the religious right, what their philosophy was. The fewer people vote, the better their chance.
ANNE NELSON: That’s right. And from the beginning, in terms of their electoral tactics, it has been a matter of weaponizing certain churches and pastors and really exerting tremendous pressure on them to use churches as instruments of a radical right ideology. And then using similar tactics to suppress votes for Democrats, especially in key battleground states.
BILL MOYERS: So that’s why you conclude in your book they were to the right of the Republican Party. They were not just an offshoot of the Republican Party. They were not just fundraisers for the Republican Party, but they were ideologically and organizationally taking the Republican Party far to the right.
ANNE NELSON: Absolutely, and somewhat to my surprise, I found that their prototype was the Southern Baptist Convention, where they decided that in order to move it to the right, they had to use questionable tactics to elevate their supporters to key positions of influence and purge the Southern Baptist Convention of moderates in the seminaries and in the colleges and among the pastors. And it was a fairly ruthless process, and once these tactics were developed, they applied it to the Republican Party. And you had the same kind of tactics going on of purging moderates, some of whom had been in office for years.
BILL MOYERS: I should point out to some of our younger listeners and readers that the Southern Baptist Convention at the time and still today was the largest Protestant denomination in America. You know, something like it eventually reached 16 and a half million members scattered throughout the South and the West. We’ll come back to them in a moment. What do you think about the NEW YORK TIMES’ assessment that Amy Coney Barrett represents a new conservativism rooted in faith. That’s how their headline described a three-page portrait of her life and career. Does that make sense to you?
ANNE NELSON: Not entirely, because as a conservative Catholic, she follows in the footsteps of others such as Brett Kavanaugh and Antonin Scalia. So that’s not very new. And what I look at in my book SHADOW NETWORK is how these interlocking organizations support each other. The book is about the Council for National Policy– a radical right-wing organization that is very secretive, and it brings together big donors like the DeVos family and oil interests from Texas and Oklahoma and political operatives. And, for example, members include the leadership of the Federalist Society. Well, Amy Coney Barrett was a member of the Federalist Society for a number of years and is still a speaker at their events. It includes the head of Hillsdale College, which is one of their campus partners. Amy Coney Barrett was commencement speaker for Hillsdale College this year. So, there are all of these organizations that have been turning their wheels to promote her really for several years going back. She appeared on previous lists of potential nominees for the Supreme Court, and I don’t believe she would have been included in those lists had she not confirmed to their traditional idea of an activist judge.
BILL MOYERS: They knew what they were looking for.
ANNE NELSON: And I should add that one of the most powerful components in the Council for National Policy is the anti-abortion movement. Organizations such as the Susan B. Anthony List and Concerned Women for America and other interests, which are anti-environmentalist interests from the fossil fuels industry. So, I think that we’ve seen a roadmap of what to expect moving forward.
BILL MOYERS: Tell me, who does make up the Council for National Policy?
ANNE NELSON: So, the Council for National Policy has traditionally been around 400 members. From the beginning, it’s included people with big money, a lot of them from the Texas and Oklahoma oil industries, but also the DeVos family of Michigan from the Amway fortune, and Betsy DeVos, of course. So, it has the big money to pay for things. It’s got the leaders of so-called grassroots organizations. Now, I say so-called, because they do not spring from the grassroots the way that you would expect from the name. They are organized with a great deal of money from the top down. So, for example, the National Rifle Association– their leadership is part of the CNP. They get money from the donors, they organize their millions of members, and you combine these with the strategists and the media owners. And I spend a lot of time in my book talking about the power of fundamentalist and conservative radio in swing states. Things that people on the East Coast overlook to a terrible degree. And the same thing with fundamentalist broadcasting, which has really several of these broadcasters — the Christian Broadcasting Network, the Trinity Broadcasting Network have really turned into outlets replicating the messaging from this organization. So, you have them interlocking and interacting and each supporting each other’s function. And I should explain something here, which is that they represent historically a white, Protestant, I’m sorry, but male-dominated patriarchy–
BILL MOYERS: No, that’s okay.
ANNE NELSON: And I have to say that demographically its time has passed. The United States has become more diverse religiously, ethnically, and racially. And they recognize that their core positions are not supported by the majority of Americans. So, they went to the limit, pulled out all the stops to get Trump elected by a tiny margin, but they doubt that they can do that again. The signs are not good. What they can do is make their hold on the federal courts concrete through the Supreme Court, and therefore, get majorities in cases like gerrymandering, voter suppression, and their political activation of the churches with tax-exempt status. And further their hold on power through the courts.
BILL MOYERS: So which part of the shadow network do you think chose, mentored, and groomed Amy Coney Barrett for this moment?
ANNE NELSON: Well, I have to speculate here. But I would see a fairly straight line from her position to Leonard Leo’s. Now, Leonard Leo is a very conservative Catholic. He was the operational figure of the Federalist Society for a number of years, and recently he shifted from that position to an even more activist position. Amy Coney Barrett was already a member of the Federalist Society. The Federalist Society has a pipeline through the lower federal courts, which she benefited from. So, in terms of this Catholic interaction they would be quite close to each other. Another key figure is Carrie Severino, who is from the Judicial Crisis Network, which was co-founded by Leonard Leo. And again, very right-wing Catholics who have tended to be overlooked while people focus on the fundamentalist Protestants. But Ralph Reed, who has been somebody who’s been active with the fundamentalist politicization for decades declared openly years ago that the next step to their campaign was to enlist the Catholic vote. And they’ve been aggressively doing that in recent years.
BILL MOYERS: And then there’s Don McGahn who was for three years Donald Trump’s chief White House counsel, graduate of Notre Dame, admirer of Amy Coney Barrett, who was scouting himself for recruits to bring up, train, groom, and put into the mix for potential Supreme Court justices. And I read that he was highly enthusiastic about her, had talked to Leo and that they had you had both these White House and legal forces behind her, knowing that she was one of them.
[The interview continues. I urge you to open the link and read it in full to understand the secret network that is currently running the federal government and selecting justices for the Supreme Court.]
We need to recognize Corporate Feudalism is a distinct form of government that is presently engaged in destroying every sector of Representative Democracy as we once knew it.
But Corporatism plays by its own rules, and couldn’t care less about the rules of democratic policy making and execution. People keep being confused about that. They keep asking why corporate insurgents do what they do when the answer should be obvious.
The corporate pyramid schemers are not playing on the side of democracy. They do not play by the rules of democracy and they never will.
FB • On This Day • 25 Oct 2017
Jon
Is it your intent to deflect?
Relative to school privatization- the Koch network (corporate feudalism) and some state Catholic Conferences together, organize school choice rallies in state capitols.
Does the interview identify Paul Weyrich as Catholic? He was a founder of the religious right and received his funding from the Koch’s.
Linda,
Sorry, I don’t understand your comment. I am obviously placing these developments in the context of a more general development.
The way corporate capitalism exploits religious sentiments and (especially) pretensions has been well marked since the days of Max Weber’s The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism if not Voltaire.
The “development” Moyer thought warranted exposure doesn’t merit your comment because it’s insignificant, having been known since Max Weber’s writing about protestants?
Puppet Masters is good. It’s a Punch and Judy show where religion is just one of the tools GOPpeto uses to divide and conquer the People and keep them fighting each other.
and as pyramid schemes they count on using the masses, not helping them
Yes, I’m simply saying the driving forces here are power and wealth, not religion nor any binding faith. What we have here is the Narcissism Of The Self-Elect (NOTSEism) . Followers of NOTSEism truly believe the Greed of the Few Outweighs the Needs of the Many. Like the consummate con artists they are, they find particular varieties of religious belief, especially the bad faith variants, to be their most convenient tools for exploiting the masses.
Jon-
Is your point that the religious have puppet masters?
Ranking the puppets in terms of influence on public policy, politics
(including voters)…?
Are the puppet masters driving the abortion and gay marriage agenda? Peter Thiel is gay.
Linda: To fascist-oligarchs, abortion an gay marriage are policy crumbs . . . payment for support. They don’t care because they don’t need to, and don’t intend to follow the law anyway.
DeVos is a kind of hybrid . . . both rich and religious. It seems she thinks everyone she deems “religious” thinks exactly like she does. We can put her picture under a new dictionary phrase: Stupid Rich
CBK
Late but appreciated.
Here is another related article from TruthDig by CHRIS HEDGES: “Neoliberalism’s Dark Path to Fascism.”
https://www.truthdig.com/articles/neoliberalisms-dark-path-to-fascism/
CBK
Chris Hedges is so good on so many issues and yet he is not going to vote for Joe Biden. Not voting for Biden is tantamount to a vote for Trump, in my opinion. For pity’s sake, Trump is the neo-fascist and he’s giving a nod and a wink to the armed fascist goons and right wing militia groups.
Chris Hedges would lose a lot of financial support if he endorsed Biden. A real investigative report would look at where the money comes from that props up his career as a “professional leftist”. Bernie Sanders has spent his life fighting for real people. Hedges has spent his life promoting his own interests.
^^In the interests of fairness, I should have clarified that Hedges was a war correspondent for many years, so I was wrong not to acknowledge that difficult job. But he does seem to have lost his way and I am not sure why.
If only Chris Hedges understood that it is the Republican Party who embraces the entire “neoliberalism” agenda.
If only Chris Hedges understood that while some Democrats may be neoliberals, it is by no means the mantra of the entire party the way it is with the Republicans.
Chris Hedges would come to Nazi Germany in the 1930s and declare that he is going to save the world from fascism by explaining how fascist the party that OPPOSES Hitler is!!! Hedges would sit back and let the real fascism thrive while he devotes every waking hour of his day to search for examples of fascism in the opposing party and amplifies any example he finds to warn people that the real fascism is in the party that opposes Hitler, and that’s who they need to defeat to destroy fascism! Not defeat Hitler!
Anyone who can’t see the real fascism in front of his eyes is a fraud. And Chris Hedges is a fraud. A privileged, white private school educated fraud. He’s a careerist, and he cares about promoting himself, not what happens to people who aren’t sitting in his privileged position.
In addition to other signs of fascism, a new book about the lives of the wives of the men at the top of Hitler’s command, provides insight. There are parallels to the way Trump treats women and, to the views that are held by the Catholic influencers of GOP policies.
The wives who opposed their husbands’ philandering sought permission to divorce which Hitler denied. He feared the public relations effect on the family values plank of his platform.
Some of the wives bought into the same propaganda promoted by current right wing Catholics, coupling for the purpose of as many children as possible.
Some women, when faced with their husbands’ adultery, agreed to situations with mistress and wife living in the same house. Jonathan Turley, a Constitutional lawyer who spoke for Trump’s side in the impeachment hearings, in other arguments, makes a case for men to legally marry multiple women.
Most important point made in the interview-
“…overlooked while people focused on the fundamentalist protestants.”
My brain is spinning from all the right wing groups proliferating all across the country. As if we don’t already have enough of these well heeled reactionary troglodytes who want to take us back to 1920 and blatant predatory capitalism. When I think about it, who are better representatives of blatant predatory capitalism than Bezos, Gates and the Walton Family, for example.
Joe Jersey One wonders what happens if the DeVos, Koch, etc., money disappears.
In today’s field of communications, such power makes for a sustained bubble that looks like MANY and massive agreement. The money is to the FEW oligarchs like the curtain is to the little man behind it. CBK
The Madison Institute (which sponsored this lecture) is a non-partisan progressive policy center. Hurrah! Not to be confused with the James Madison Institute which is far right wing!
Prediction-
We’ll see a highly publicized victory lab, broadcast by media, if the white Catholic vote for Trump lessens in 2020 from its 60% in 2016. To this point, media have been been unable to find Catholic conservatism in Trump’s administration, the political activism of state Catholic Conferences and, the alliance between evangelicals and Catholics. Media’s
reports assign power to evangelical leaders and ignores the political power wielded by the far more influential Catholic Church hierarchy.
We will hear a lot about the liberal Catholic win in the Trump vote because it deflects. The down ballot impact on the politicking by the Catholic hierarchy including the world’s largest lay organization, the Knights of Columbus, will remain unnoticed.
Diane, Linda, John and All
The number of Catholics on the U.S. Supreme Court is alarming; but also that all but one is considered ultra-conservative. I have been rather vocal about that on this blog . . . both as supportive of Catholicism (to counter the discourse of hate coming from rabid anti-Catholics) AND as joining with those who are finally wary, again, of the number of Catholics on the Court. Here is a related snip from the LA Times on Oct. 22 about Pope Frances:
“Though beloved by the poor, the marginalized and many others for whom he advocates, Francis — the first Jesuit pope — is reviled by archconservatives and traditionalists who accuse him of ‘diluting’ the church’s ‘purity.’ His support for civil unions will further anger his conservative foes already irritated by his push to give communion to remarried divorcees.”
First, I have said this before here, but it’s becoming obvious that, against Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution, there is in fact a religious TEST going on in the preselection of candidates drawn from the unelected Federalist Society AND ACCEPTED BY those who make the final Court choices. They cannot suppress enough votes so they pack the court with far right-wingers who will do their bidding for them.
Second is that their neoliberal, far right-wing “conservatism” flies in the face of anything I know of that Jesus himself taught. Noticeably, their choice of Catholics is NOT drawn from the more liberal wing of Catholicism–you know . . . the one’s who actually follow Jesus’ teachings about the poor, etc.
Third I think it’s not Catholicism that is the problem, or at least not the ONLY problem. The problem is rather that no matter what the so-called church “hierarchy” think (notably, besides Francis), OR many but not all in the pews, OR other-church evangelicals, they are being used as colossal dupes for the irresponsible arrogant corporate hogs in the world, most of whom have pushed anything close to their own morality and religiosity into the trash cans under their desks.
If they are not totally fascist, they are like Arendt’s fascist centers of power . . . self-glorified masters of the universe, manipulators and controllers from their gated homes, penthouses, jets, and luxury liners, making quasi-slaves of everyone in the “outer circles” who can serve them and their short-term and often unsavory desires . . . the list of which is unending.
Even for those who wish for a new theocracy, history gives evidence, NOT of a final Catholic or other theocracy, but of self-serving totalitarian dictators and corporation-owned governments . . . who throw the Church policy-crumbs as long as it doesn’t interfere with the dictator’s and/or corporation’s unending stream of power and wealth. The Church either capitulates its spirit to capitalist forces on purpose, or lives through the attrition needed for survival, such as it is, under oligarch-dictators with military power, collecting what crumbs they can.
Here is another snip from the New York Book Review:
“’Trump is a politician who may want to cling to power after losing the election, just like Lukashenko, although, of course, they are in completely different institutional environments,’ he went on. ‘But the fact that someone like Trump came to power at all and subjugated the Republican Party so easily shows that an institutional framework alone cannot protect democracy. Even the best-crafted law depends on the attitude of society.’”
CBK
Linda’s been telling us about this for years:
“ANNE NELSON: Well, I have to speculate here. But I would see a fairly straight line from her position to Leonard Leo’s. Now, Leonard Leo is a very conservative Catholic. He was the operational figure of the Federalist Society for a number of years, and recently he shifted from that position to an even more activist position. Amy Coney Barrett was already a member of the Federalist Society. The Federalist Society has a pipeline through the lower federal courts, which she benefited from. So, in terms of this Catholic interaction they would be quite close to each other. Another key figure is Carrie Severino, who is from the Judicial Crisis Network, which was co-founded by Leonard Leo. And again, very right-wing Catholics who have tended to be overlooked while people focus on the fundamentalist Protestants. But Ralph Reed, who has been somebody who’s been active with the fundamentalist politicization for decades declared openly years ago that the next step to their campaign was to enlist the Catholic vote. And they’ve been aggressively doing that in recent years.”
GregB Missed the point again. CBK
I’m going to have give these rhetorical gymnastics a 1.8 out of 10.
Greg-
Presuming your rating applies to the contortions in the article, I agree.
CBK…..when someone tells me they are Christian, I now respond with “Are you classic Jesus or Republican Jesus?” I am 100% with your assessment. These greedy cretans are manipulating religion so that they gain/maintain wealth and power. They might go to church and be pious, but they do not practice their religion.
LisaM Yes, . . . the economics alone are polar opposites . . . between the “religious” right and The New Testament. CBK
This is Betsy DeVos’s and the radical religious right’s ultimate goal:
Gary North explains why getting students out of public schools is key to the Christian dominionist camp. “So let us be blunt about it: we must use the doctrine of religious liberty to gain independence for Christian schools until we train up a generation of people who know that there is no religious neutrality, no neutral law, no neutral education, and no neutral civil government. Then they will get busy in constructing a Bible-based social, political, and religious order which finally denies the religious liberty of the enemies of God.”
They aim to take our freedom from us – we must make sure this never happens.
Don Corley If most in the DeVos camp think as your quote suggests, then they also betray the tribalism of that thinking . . . in the idea that no neutrality is even possible.
In tribal thinking, it’s my way or the highway. Don’t make peace or compromise with your perceived enemies on some higher principle, as is baked in to the U.S. Constitution. Rather, kill your enemies, “take advantage” of the women, and raise up the resultant children under your own tribal order.
Under that principle, you cannot referee a baseball game and be fair, on principle, or follow the rules, regardless of which team you may or may not support. Apply that principle to politics and religion, and you have statements, in substance, like your quote. That’s how tribal thinking works. So much for the idea that intelligence follows bloodlines or bankbooks. CBK
What a fascinating piece. Resonant with me was the reference to the political maneuvering of the conservatives in the Southern Baptist convention. A fri end of mine grew up very traditional Baptist. His father was part of the music of the church, editing hymnals and such. Years ago, he told me how his father had been summarily dispatched by the conservative movement’s young Turks. Moderate Baptist schools either separated themselves from the convention or found their leadership towing a particular party line. What would Roger Williams say?
Here is a list of the members of the secretive National Policy Council. https://thegrayzone.com/2020/08/30/membership-list-powerful-secretive-christian-right-america/
I have not looked at the whole list, but I see that one is from Cincinnati, Kenneth Blackwell, whose wife was the Superintendent of CPS for a while. They have since moved to Columbus Ohio. Ken Blackwell’s appearance on the list is no surprise. It is unfortunate that the list is not in a format that allows you to search it–screen shots, some at poor angles, and the list is very long.
This name on the list is no surprise: Virginia “Ginni” Thomas – The wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. But other information may be of interest. Ginni Thomas was part of the Groundswell network that compiled lists of “disloyal” Trump administration officials to be fired. An early history of the Groundswell network can be found in a 2013 Mother Jones article. The early efforts of this group enlisted conservatives who wanted to attack Obama and also diminish Carl Rove’s role in publicizing positions of the Republican party.
There is no current hit lists of “disloyal” officials in the Trump administration, but a long list of those he has fired and replaced with incompetents. But there is a new tool for purging federal civil service workers–career professionals who have been caricatured as part of a Deep State undermining Trump.
The recent opportunity to purge civil service workers comes with Trump’s appointment of Johnny McEntee to be Director of the White House Presidential Personnel Office. Trump did not care that McEntee had earlier been fired by former chief of staff John Kelly over security clearance issues. According to Axios, “Trump has empowered McEntee — whom he considers an absolute loyalist — to purge the “bad people” and “Deep State.” McEntee told staff that those identified as anti-Trump will no longer get promotions by shifting them around agencies.”
That Axios report, February 20, 2020, perked up my brain because Trump has just issued an Executive Order enabling him to reclassify current civil servants and make them at-will employees, easy to fire with no employee rights or benefits. This Executive order means that the lists, like those developed by the Groundswell network, are ready to use for a purge along with Trump’s own spur of the moment rages about firing people
The October 21, 2020 Executive order allows Trump and agency officials to get rid of any civil service worker who disagrees with Trump’s policies,. The executive order greatly expands the number of government positions that Trump can award as a “perk” to loyalists, lobbyists, and big money contributors. The Executive order is designed to destabilize the architecture of almost every federal agency by empowering political operatives to shape policy.
Trump’s Executive Order strips almost civil service workers from federal due process rights and nullifies the role of federal examinations in qualifying for a civil service position. For a good discussion of some of the implications see https://federalnewsnetwork.com/workforce/2020/10/new-executive-order-may-reclassify-wide-swaths-of-career-positions-as-political-appointees/ For the full Executive Order go to
Just to be clear, the Executive Order is sharply focussed on putting political appointees in place before the (assumed) Presidential transition, and justifying these moves as necessary for “efficient” governance.
John McEntee attended St. Angela Merici parish school and Servite High School, an all-boys Catholic high school.
Laura Chapman writes: “Just to be clear, the Executive Order is sharply focused on putting political appointees in place before the (assumed) Presidential transition, and justifying these moves as necessary for ‘efficient’ governance.”
“EFFICIENT” translation via the Orwellian Dictionary of Trump Terminology:
WORSHIPFUL of TRUMP
On MADDOW last night: The guy who ran that department resigned yesterday due to a conflict of conscience. CBK
GregB If you don’t understand the facts in the larger context, and in view of history, what I said in my note WILL look like rhetorical gymnastics to you. Sigh . . . . CBK
Reblogged this on Lloyd Lofthouse and commented:
The real shadow government that wants to take away the freedoms the U.S. Constitution protects, supports Donald Trump in every dirty way possible. Let’s call them Trump’s Swamp Creatures.
“DeVos is a kind of hybrid . . . both rich and religious. It seems she thinks everyone she deems “religious” thinks exactly like she does. We can put her picture under a new dictionary phrase: Stupid Rich”
CBK
Catherine King
Private schools, then, are a shortcut for DeVos to make sure everyone thinks the way she does by “brainwashing” students.
Darrell I don’t think so. I’ve taught at some excellent religious schools. But DeVos seems to think so. I’m saying she’s playing to a strawman of her own making. CBK
Catherine Yes, I agree with your view of DeVos. I was suggesting, perhaps in the wrong venue, that a major reason for privatising, especially elementary schools, is to educate a generation of students to be, as adults, less likely to penalize the rich in any way.
I agree that many Catholic schools are excellent. I saw good results in their students at the two Catholic Universities I attended.
Today, Fox and other media reported about Trump’s rally in Circleville, Ohio. There were 3 women in nun’s attire wearing MAGA masks, cheering when Trump invoked God. The women were positioned prominently in the front row behind Trump’s podium.
It’s not known if they were costumed for the event or were actually nuns. However, a grand jury’s indictment and the arrest of a priest this week (immediately prior to the arrest, he served as pastor at several Catholic parishes in Ohio), is known. He is charged with trafficking a minor and other crimes. Allegedly he met two of his victims at a Toledo area Catholic grade school and at a middle school. One of the victims who is now older was arrested in an unrelated incident and, allegedly, his phone had incriminating information linking the priest and young man.
Linda You can put away your spreader now. CBK
In case you missed it, Linda, this the talk of the town in New Orleans:
https://www.foxnews.com/us/louisiana-archbishop-blasts-demonic-sex-act-in-church-orders-altar-removed-burned
And some more comedy gold. Gold, Jerry, gold, I tell ya (especially the part about Latin):
https://apnews.com/article/san-francisco-roman-catholicism-california-united-states-37b4b37682e6862b18f1b2bf7505f190
I hadn’t seen the AP linked article.
Quoting Cordileone- The devil doesn’t like the Latin language. My addition- nor does the Catholic God like women. God’s interpreters who are the Church’s hierarchy, will sacrifice a woman’s life for the fetus in her womb. Barbaric. And, they justify women treated as second class citizens.
From my experience and viewpoint, the individuals defending the church and, those who are the face of the Trump administration are scary to reasonable and rationale people.
Linda (and GregB): As is evident in the quote below, just like the rest of society, and just like people and cultures all over the world, the “church” and everyone in it is in transition:
SNIP/my bold: “Though beloved by the poor, the marginalized and many others for whom he advocates, Francis — the first Jesuit pope — is reviled by arch-conservatives and traditionalists who accuse him of ‘diluting’ the church’s ‘purity.’ His support for civil unions will further anger his conservative foes already irritated by his push to give communion to remarried divorcees.” (LA Times/Oct. 22)
AGAIN, what you say here on this blog often is true. However, when you ascribe the entire “church” as only in its worst light, and only by its extreme factions . . . like writing that “the Catholic God” doesn’t like women . . . you bring falsity to your own arguments and show yourself to be as dogmatically static, short-sighted, and even hateful as anyone that I have witnessed who calls themselves Catholic or even religious.
As a general note, one of the deep set problems with today’s discourse, such as it is, is that ONLY the extremes have the floor and are screaming at one another. When you take the above stance about the entire “church,” you put yourself in that extreme vs extreme framework. And so, as a Catholic who thinks of myself as not extreme, I take great offence at it and recognize it as part of the problem rather than the solution.
REMINDER: Joe Biden is Catholic as is Nancy Pelosi and a slew of others, again, including myself. CBK
CBK, I realize we talk past each other, but I’ll give it one last, likely futile, try to see if we might be able to at least understand each other. We don’t have to agree.
When I first started commenting on this blog a little over four years ago, I engaged in a discussion with Diane about German resistance activities during the Third Reich. To summarize my arguments, I believe those who engaged in resistance–from active participation in groups to isolated acts of civil disobedience–represented the very best of humanity. And while there were many of them, they still represented a very, very small portion of the German population. A sizable minority of Germans were true believers, collaborators, and ardent followers–anywhere from 20-40% of the population. The vast majority were indifferent in the sense that they went along and got along, never were very vocal about support, but joined the army when they were called up, worked in the war machine factories happy to be employed, reported things that might be potentially subversive to the authorities, and generally tried to blend into the scenery. Their acquiescent behavior, historically speaking, shone a greater light on the extremes on either side of them; one very small, the other fairly substantive.
But I never, as far as I know, ever minimized the reality. The fact is that the vast majority of Germans were rightly associated with the worst elements of Naziism. The humanity of the small minority of resistors did not absolve the sins of the many. They did, however, create a beacon to which post-war Germans toward which those who had sinned could find values and actions to aspire, repent and engage in acts of contrition. Because of the policies of the West German Adenauer administration, they didn’t have to go as far as they should have been required to go. Far too many perpetrators and fellow travelers got off way too easy and the most moral resistors continued to be persecuted, which is why many went to East Germany where things generally were much worse for them.
I see an analogous situation with American Catholics. (To be clear, I do not think this about Protestants or Jews. Neither has an ultimate hierarchy comparable to Catholicism; they have no pope or patriarch [would be nice to rail against a matriarch], there are distinct factions that don’t adhere to the others.) Historically, there has been a liberal minority, there is a larger minority that sets doctrine, and the largest faction is in the middle and generally tends to do as the latter proclaims except in very particular circumstances. More recently, the extremes–the liberals and the progressive Pope on side and the doctrinaire traditionalists and fellow travelers who claim to honor the Pope on the other–pick and choose and outright deride the ideas he proclaims when it suits their notion of orthodoxy.
CBK, you represent the liberal minority. Where we part is–I believe–is that you claim over and over again that the minority view speaks for the majority or somehow mystically represents their true opinions. I don’t agree with this at all. You pick and choose examples that are exceptions and imply they represent the majority. But they do not represent the vast middle of Catholics like those in Youngstown, OH, in McComb, MI, in Metairie, LA, in St. Louis, MO, in Austin, TX, and so on, the ones that dutifully go to mass and then forget everything they heard and proclaim to believe as soon as they step outside of the church. They pick and choose. They choose to live by one standard and impose their political views–by which few adhere in their personal lives–on the majority of Americans, not just those who wear the jersey of their faith. They are arguably the most important faction of the few votes that put the Idiot into the White House. They will arguably be with him and his minions as they do all they can to further destroy the American experiment in an orgy of selfishness and perceived self interest–they have no understanding of the fact that they are actually voting against their self interest. So that’s a long explanation of why your arguments that draw on selective examples and contrived associations don’t and won’t ever fly with me.
GregB Though I think your analysis is “off” at several points, it’s still a far piece from broad-brushing the entire “church” with what’s, in fact, a knot of extremism that never got over Vatican II and, presently, has more power than it should. That’s my complaint about Linda’s portrayal of Catholicism.
And I think your own sense of history should reveal the misguided hyper-criticism and fear of theocracy that comes through in Linda’s constant barrage against the Catholic church. Even if some hard-right wish it, if history is to be any judge of it, it’s pure fantasy. Money and power, not a return to theocracy, is where the fascist road leads.
As I said before, and I still don’t think you fully understand, the Church is in transition; and I would add that the present right-wing power knot, which deserves such critique, is on the wrong side of history, and that curve bends away from where they are and towards authentic progress.
Also, I don’t know how many Catholics are liberal or conservative or in-between, but I suspect neither do you. Perhaps what’s going on presently will bring to consciousness for some the denial (of hypocrisy) that many are still involved in, as you suggest. Religion is not going away, but, from the longer view, the people and institutions involved in it can and are changing.
Currently, I read today that Joe Biden is reaching out particularly to Catholics this week, of course as an insider who also understands the right relationship between the church and his secular-democratic duties and oaths of office. But again, to make statements such as “the Catholic God hates women” (from Linda, not you) is extreme and inflammatory, not to mention ignorant and contemptuous. There’s not an ounce of reason in it. CBK
GregB Aaarrrrggghhh. . . My response to your post posted twice . . . I don’t know why. Probably something I did, but not on purpose. CBK
One rebuttal per paragraph, again, understanding that we will not agree and that’s fine, American even.
You argue that a criticism that those who claim the Catholic church “has more power than it should” is refuted by the fact that 6 of the 9 justices on the Court are Catholic.
Money, power and theocracy are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, there are innumerable examples in history that money is quite comfortable with theocracy.
The “transition” you consistently espouse is not represented in Church leadership or public policy. And before you go on about selective examples of Pelosi and Biden, there are priests who would deny them communion and they have never faced any sanctions.
Please show me evidence of the curve turning etc. in Youngstown, McComb County, Metairie, etc. Polls in the past 40 years plus suggest otherwise.
While the Catholic “god” may not hate women, there is no question he (and he is a he) sees them as second-class at best. Until priests can marry, until women can serve as priests, until the notion of dominion is rejected by approved cults like “people of praise,” until gay couples who have faith have to quit shopping around for churches to worship (and the priests who reject them are excommunicated), then it’s all selective window dressing to throw people like you a life preserver so that you can claim things like “transition.”
Greg,
I’m married to a devout Roman Catholic who loves the “body of belief,” not the doctrine or the practices you describe. Your and Linda’s wholesale dismissal of the Church treats such people as Biden, Pelosi, my spouse, and other Social Justice Catholics as anomalies, rather than as the future of the Church. By the way, Gorsuch was born a Catholic but married a Protestant and converted. So the Suprene Court is 7 Catholics (including Gorsuch, who is rigid and extreme on religious issues) and two Jews.
GregB Nothing is written in stone, and change is slow; but a transition towards a more progressive church is evident in the longer view of history. And as a general rule, push-back is usually the hardest right before massive change.
But I’m stymied by this paragraph in your note:
“You (CBK) argue that a criticism that those who claim the Catholic church ‘has more power than it should’ is refuted by the fact that 6 of the 9 justices on the Court are Catholic.”
Huh. . . ? But I think that comment reveals the absence of the pervasive point: There are bigger contexts, deeper forces, and longer views to consider. They murdered Martin Luther King, Jr., but the truth that “justice bends towards justice” didn’t go away with his death.
I don’t expect everyone to always refer to the longer view, but at least we should recognize its presence.
Also, your reference to “the Catholic church” reveals that, though you claim not to have a monolithic view of the church, you actually do harbor that view. It’s the same thing as rubber stamping “Congress” as “hypocritical” because of the moral comportments of a Lindsay Graham and a Mitch McConnell . . .without understanding the people involved, oppositions, transitional movements, or what’s actually going on there.
Finally, you say: “The ‘transition’ you (CBK) consistently espouse is not represented in Church leadership or public policy” citing “selective examples” of Pelosi and Biden. Well, Pelosi and Biden wield a good amount of power in leadership in public policy; but also . . .regarding “church leadership”? You conveniently left out the Pope. CBK
Diane and CBK, I would argue that you read what you want into my remarks on this topic and do not actually read them. Your representations of my remarks don’t have much to do with what I write. Two points: Never have I written that all Catholics are alike or monolithic. I’ve been consistent in my views of the first amendment. And CBK, you will see in my original that I very much refer to the pope in the my fourth paragraph. And I didn’t need italics and bold print to make my argument.
GregB I know you SAID you do not view the church as monolithic, but your writing betrays that you do–I gave you the evidence for it in my note. I didn’t “read into” your note, I read your note.
This paragraph is from the note I responded to, and mention of the Pope was nowhere to be found in that note. . . . a good example of carving an argument on the model of one’s biases and limitations: “selective omission,” . . . though not necessarily bad; in this case . . . . since Pope Frances is THE prime example of “Church leadership”?
From your note: “The ‘transition’ you (CBK) consistently espouse is not represented in Church leadership or public policy. And before you go on about selective examples of Pelosi and Biden, there are priests who would deny them communion and they have never faced any sanctions.”
. . . and like you, I haven’t done a poll, but I’m sure many priests don’t so-deny. Also, in short discourse, like blog writing, monolithic-soundings are almost essential; however, not to consistently capture all the bad and as-consistently, omit all of the good. Shame on you,. . . less for doing it than for not recognizing it in your own writing. CBK
CBK, reading comprehension seems not to be your strong suit:
“More recently, the extremes–the liberals and the progressive Pope on (one) side and the doctrinaire traditionalists and fellow travelers who claim to honor the Pope on the other–pick and choose and outright deride the ideas he proclaims when it suits their notion of orthodoxy.”
It strikes me that your contortionist defensiveness is a creative form of projection.
Does it not strike you as strange and telling that the most vocal critics of Francis are the people of his flock and not intolerant morons like me?
GregB You write: “Does it not strike you as strange and telling that the most vocal critics of Francis are the people of his flock and not intolerant morons like me?”
Telling, but not strange. It’s telling because internal divisiveness is commonly a precursor to change; and it’s exactly why broad-brushing “Catholics,” always in a negative light, always with everything bad and nothing good, or portraying Catholicism as monolithic (even while denying doing so) is so wrong-headed and misleading. CBK
The nuns may have been fake nuns. There is a widespread rumor on Twitter that Donald Trump went to the last debate with a body double of Melania, who hates campaign events. See the hashtag #FakeMelania. People saw distinct differences, such as height, teeth, and the fact that she smiles as she looks at Trump, which Melania seldom does.
Media claim they have identified the origin of the habits and matched photos with those of nuns in the Sister of Mary Convent (Children of Mary) in Newark, Ohio.
The convent’s mission, “…every moment of our lives a ceaseless act of love to Jesus Eucharist…”
Bishop Hebda wouldn’t permit his priests to vote in a Democratic primary.
“If they are not totally fascist, they are like Arendt’s fascist centers of power . . . self-glorified masters of the universe, manipulators and controllers from their gated homes, penthouses, jets, and luxury liners, making quasi-slaves of everyone in the “outer circles” who can serve them and their short-term and often unsavory desires . . . the list of which
is unending.” Catherine King
For a moment there, I thought the above described Ayn Rand’s heroes who settled in
Colorado to get away from looters, and several years after the liberating Ronald Reagan tax cuts were finally led out by John Galt.
No One Expects The Grand Inquisitor —
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/8578/8578-h/8578-h.htm
“the power of fundamentalist and conservative radio in swing states. Things that people on the East Coast overlook to a terrible degree.” I can attest to this just from my small Northeastern bubble [central-NJ near coast] – & my limited knowledge of adjoining swing state Pennsylvania.
For yrs, driving from central-NJ to my upstate-NY hometown, I noted a dead-zone, radio-wise, that starts when you get west of the Delaware Water Gap (crossing into PA) & extends until you’re far enough [100 mis] north to pull in NYS’s Southern Tier-city stations.
In that radio dead-zone, only one or two stations come in—Christian stations. Usually one would be sermons and Christian-pop tunes, the other a series of ‘prosperity-gospel’ call-in shows. I found it strange and interesting to hear Bible-thumpers’ advice on life habits guaranteed to eliminate debt while polishing my prospects in the Beyond via canny investments and prayer.
Then I started driving my youngest to a skateboarding camp in central PA, & realized the radio dead-zone extended at least 135 mis west of the Delaware Water Gap. From other sashays into Hershey and Lancaster, I know that zone extends another 140 mis south of the camp location. So this is a big area that looks like it could (?) encompass a large part of PA outside the Philly & Pittsburgh areas.
My travels in that central-eastern quadrant of PA show it’s beautiful countryside, rural and hilly-to-mountainous, with occasional breathtaking turns like the rocky outcroppings and gorges of Jim Thorpe. The towns are small and Biblically-named—like Nazareth, which contains the Martin Guitar factory and is home to many interesting cultural gatherings.
One time, taking back roads, planning a motel stopover near skateboard camp then a trip north to see my mother, I got lost at dusk in one such tiny, spiritually-named mini-community, golden in the gloaming. I spied an aproned, long-skirted lady right out of a Van Gogh painting, bent over tending her garden. She was most helpful, explaining the right-left-right-left to the motel. As I drove away, I wondered if her entire knowledge of the world was contained in those 2 Christian radio stations, or if perhaps she had cable TV…